info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The reason why theists "feel" god.
153 views
Skip to first unread message
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 3, 2012, 10:23:20 PM11/3/12
to
Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us. Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft. Unfortunately, the raft is actually a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft. Unfortunately, the raft is actually a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
Bill
Nov 4, 2012, 6:58:12 AM11/4/12
to
On Nov 4, 9:28�am, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us. Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft. Unfortunately, the raft is actually a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
______________________________________________________________________________________
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us. Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft. Unfortunately, the raft is actually a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
I think the argument that theists believe in God because they are
overwhelmed by fear of death is about on a par with the argument that
atheists disbelieve in God because they are overwhelmed by fear of
Judgment.
jonathan
Nov 4, 2012, 8:57:49 AM11/4/12
to
"Shawn Lorenzana" <darthm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7753be40-26e7-44d9...@googlegroups.com...
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't
> understand a few things.
This is heaven!
Jonathan
s
Dale
Nov 4, 2012, 9:43:07 AM11/4/12
to
On 11/03/2012 10:23 PM, Shawn Lorenzana wrote:
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us. Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft. Unfortunately, the raft is actually a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
>
my experience is that feelings, smell, taste, and hearing pick up things
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us. Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft. Unfortunately, the raft is actually a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
>
quicker than sight
so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
--
Dale
Nick Keighley
Nov 4, 2012, 10:11:08 AM11/4/12
to
jonathan
Nov 4, 2012, 10:46:24 AM11/4/12
to
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
>
> maybe we smell god
>
What if God were defined as "the sum total of the creative
>>
>> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
>
> maybe we smell god
>
properties of the universe."?
Atheists keep insisting on proof of God, when God is
a term for that which is indefinable, but which we
know exists. For instance, a market force, tell
me if you believe in them and their goodness.
Then tell me exactly what they are.
"To tell the beauty would decrease,
To state the Spell demean,
There is a syllableless sea
Of which it is the sign.
My will endeavours for its word
And fails, but entertains
A rapture as of legacies-
Of introspective mines."
By E Dickinson
s
Kleuskes & Moos
Nov 4, 2012, 3:22:35 PM11/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:23:20 -0700, Shawn Lorenzana wrote:
> Theists who say they know god exists
Let me sum up the argument:
> Theists who say they know god exists
Theists are stoopid and we atheists are REALLY smart.
Idiot.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 4, 2012, 11:05:39 PM11/4/12
to
To clarify things, I did not post this so theists could make snarky comebacks to my post. I know that some of you theists are fully indoctrinated and don't want to leave the matrix, and that's fine. I posted this so my religiously free fellows could understand the point of view from those of you who say you feel your diety. But since I'm addressing you theists now, I'll explain some things.
You do not feel god, you feel your emotions that are triggered when preachers tell you about god. The two major emotions that are manipulated are fear, (of punishment), and acceptance,(love). There's other emotional strings that are pulled, but those are the meat of it. Consequently, your parents or guardians have done this very same thing to keep you in line when you were growing up. This is why it works so well. Calling god the Father gives the sense of family more credence. Your religious leaders are also called Father or Mother. Your fellows are referred to as brother or sister.
The corelation here is that we humans have created god(s) in our likeness and traits to better understand our environment because we had no other way. This is called anthropomorphism. They also made up what you call the spirit or soul to explain what animates us and our environment. This is called animism.
I would like to answer any questions anyone wishes to address me. Please be polite as I do not wish to engage in childish banter. I realize that people think they know the truth based upon their sources of information and I am no different about what source I trust over what source you trust with regards to information exchange. However, I will say that science is objective when used correctly and that has merit.
You do not feel god, you feel your emotions that are triggered when preachers tell you about god. The two major emotions that are manipulated are fear, (of punishment), and acceptance,(love). There's other emotional strings that are pulled, but those are the meat of it. Consequently, your parents or guardians have done this very same thing to keep you in line when you were growing up. This is why it works so well. Calling god the Father gives the sense of family more credence. Your religious leaders are also called Father or Mother. Your fellows are referred to as brother or sister.
The corelation here is that we humans have created god(s) in our likeness and traits to better understand our environment because we had no other way. This is called anthropomorphism. They also made up what you call the spirit or soul to explain what animates us and our environment. This is called animism.
I would like to answer any questions anyone wishes to address me. Please be polite as I do not wish to engage in childish banter. I realize that people think they know the truth based upon their sources of information and I am no different about what source I trust over what source you trust with regards to information exchange. However, I will say that science is objective when used correctly and that has merit.
Glenn
Nov 4, 2012, 11:12:06 PM11/4/12
to
"Shawn Lorenzana" <darthm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:95a5cbc8-8a31-45a5...@googlegroups.com...
Bill
Nov 5, 2012, 6:41:43 AM11/5/12
to
On Nov 5, 11:07�am, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To clarify things, I did not post this so theists could make snarky comebacks to my post.
No? Well, if you are posting for us atheists why not read up a bit on
> To clarify things, I did not post this so theists could make snarky comebacks to my post.
cognitive psychology of religion first? That people believe in God to
avoid the fear of death is an old argument often used to dismiss
theism, but it's hardly the leading explanation for the evolution and
persistence of religion. Try:
Daniel Dennett, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon."
Todd Tremlin, "Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion."
Pascal Boyer, "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of
Religious Thought."
They offer much deeper and less condescending explanations of the
origins of religious belief.
Snark in; Snark out.
eridanus
Nov 5, 2012, 9:24:33 AM11/5/12
to
it simple means that humans are easily tamed into believing any bullshit
whatever, on condition that do not impede to wage a normal life.
then you are forbidden to eat pork by example but you can eat other meats.
or you are obliged to pray five times a day, but you have time to do other
matters between prayers.
then, the existence of religion means that humans can be easily tamed. It is
a condition akin to other cultural matters like, folklore, myths, songs,
traditional stories, santa Claus, etc.
Eridanus
Eridanus.
Burkhard
Nov 5, 2012, 9:26:47 AM11/5/12
to
On 4 Nov, 02:28, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which >information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us.> >Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these >emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which >information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us.> >Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these >emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
term "feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence were a correct
description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
Barrett's "Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
Religion Compass 2007, vol 1 or Lawson's and McCauley's "Rethinking
Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture" Cambridge University
Press, 1990. One of the things you'll quickly learn when you read up
on the actual cog science of religion is that researchers in the
field, including atheists like Barrett or Boyer (P. Boyer, "Religious
Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions," Trends in
Cognitive Sciences 7, pp 119–24) do precisely not make the inference
from a cognitive explanation of religion to its its invalidity - the
genetic fallacy you commit and which can, for in principle,
methodological reasons, not be supported from cognitive science
research.
>
> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. >We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we >can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft.
they come. No data is given to support the view, no references to the
relevant literature. Pima facie, it is highly implausible: Belief
in an afterlife in particular would be the opposite of adaptacious -
much better for a brain worried about death to focus on real threats
like the big predator behind you than giving you a unrealistic
"everything will be all right" message. Which is why proper
scientific evolutionary theories of religion tend to focus on
religion as an overshoot of tendencies to increases, not decrease our
anxiety levels (so e.g . Boyer in the work cited above)
Burkhard
Nov 5, 2012, 9:48:11 AM11/5/12
to
On 5 Nov, 11:42, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:07 am, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To clarify things, I did not post this so theists could make snarky comebacks to my post.
>
> No? Well, if you are posting for us atheists why not read up a bit on
> cognitive psychology of religion first? That people believe in God to
> avoid the fear of death is an old argument often used to dismiss
> theism, but it's hardly the leading explanation for the evolution and
> persistence of religion. Try:
>
> Daniel Dennett, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
> Phenomenon."
> Todd Tremlin, "Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion."
> Pascal Boyer, "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of
> Religious Thought."
>
> They offer much deeper and less condescending explanations of the
> origins of religious belief.
>
> Snark in; Snark out.
>
Word! Though I'd drop from the list Dennet, who _does_ at times get as
> On Nov 5, 11:07 am, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To clarify things, I did not post this so theists could make snarky comebacks to my post.
>
> No? Well, if you are posting for us atheists why not read up a bit on
> cognitive psychology of religion first? That people believe in God to
> avoid the fear of death is an old argument often used to dismiss
> theism, but it's hardly the leading explanation for the evolution and
> persistence of religion. Try:
>
> Daniel Dennett, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
> Phenomenon."
> Todd Tremlin, "Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion."
> Pascal Boyer, "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of
> Religious Thought."
>
> They offer much deeper and less condescending explanations of the
> origins of religious belief.
>
> Snark in; Snark out.
>
condescendeing, and as methodologically flaky in his over-reach of
scientific results to argue metaphysics, and add Jesse Bering (""The
Belief instinct") or Scot Altran, (In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary
Landscape of Religion) Or if you want to balance the list by some of
the theists researching that field, the quite excellent Anna Taves,
(Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building Block Approach to the
Study of Religion and Other Special Things" Princeton University
Press, 2011) or justin Barret ("Why would anyone believe in God"
AltaMira Press, 2004)
Burkhard
Nov 5, 2012, 9:52:25 AM11/5/12
to
On 5 Nov, 14:27, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El lunes, 5 de noviembre de 2012 11:42:57 UTC, Bill escribi :
There are essentially two types of evolutionary theories of religion -
one focusses on the cognitive side (Altran, Boyer, Bering, etc), the
others are "glue theories" along the liens yuo suggest, though they
tend to focus more on the evolution of cooperation. ( Dominic Johnson
a prime example, or Richard Sosis) Ultimately , no reason to believe
that they are mutually exclusive, though in that model, evolution of
cognition typically comes first, and is then adapted for social
coordination
> El lunes, 5 de noviembre de 2012 11:42:57 UTC, Bill escribi :
one focusses on the cognitive side (Altran, Boyer, Bering, etc), the
others are "glue theories" along the liens yuo suggest, though they
tend to focus more on the evolution of cooperation. ( Dominic Johnson
a prime example, or Richard Sosis) Ultimately , no reason to believe
that they are mutually exclusive, though in that model, evolution of
cognition typically comes first, and is then adapted for social
coordination
Bill
Nov 5, 2012, 10:06:07 AM11/5/12
to
Hitchens, and Dennett) together, I always think that Dennett has a far
more sympathetic approach to religion than the other three.
Josh Miles
Nov 5, 2012, 10:34:32 AM11/5/12
to
On 11/4/2012 9:46 AM, jonathan wrote:
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
>>
>> maybe we smell god
>>
>
>
> What if God were defined as "the sum total of the creative
> properties of the universe."?
>
> Atheists keep insisting on proof of God, when God is
> a term for that which is indefinable, but which we
> know exists.
How convenient.
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
>>
>> maybe we smell god
>>
>
>
> What if God were defined as "the sum total of the creative
> properties of the universe."?
>
> Atheists keep insisting on proof of God, when God is
> a term for that which is indefinable, but which we
> know exists.
Friar Broccoli
Nov 5, 2012, 10:47:39 AM11/5/12
to
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 06:26:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>On 4 Nov, 02:28, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which >information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us.> >Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these >emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
>
>Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
>you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
>sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
>looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
>and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
>religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
>term "feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
>rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence were a correct
>description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
>address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>
>Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
>knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
>religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
>understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
>demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
>Barrett's "Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
I note that a newer work is available for $7.99 in an electronic format:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/159947381X
For those of us with very limited absorption speeds would Barrett be the
best one stop info source?
My interest is in knowing what to emphasize and what to avoid when
talking to creationists about evolution.
>Religion Compass 2007, vol 1 or Lawson's and McCauley's "Rethinking
>Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture" Cambridge University
>Press, 1990. One of the things you'll quickly learn when you read up
>on the actual cog science of religion is that researchers in the
>field, including atheists like Barrett or Boyer (P. Boyer, "Religious
>Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions," Trends in
>Cognitive Sciences 7, pp 119–24) do precisely not make the inference
>from a cognitive explanation of religion to its its invalidity - the
>genetic fallacy you commit and which can, for in principle,
>methodological reasons, not be supported from cognitive science
>research.
>
>>
>> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. >We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we >can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft.
>
>As "just so" stories in evolutionary theory go, that one is as bad as
>they come. No data is given to support the view, no references to the
>relevant literature. Pima facie, it is highly implausible: Belief
>in an afterlife in particular would be the opposite of adaptacious -
>much better for a brain worried about death to focus on real threats
>like the big predator behind you than giving you a unrealistic
>"everything will be all right" message. Which is why proper
>scientific evolutionary theories of religion tend to focus on
>religion as an overshoot of tendencies to increases, not decrease our
>anxiety levels (so e.g . Boyer in the work cited above)
>
>> Unfortunately, the raft is actually >a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
>
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
wrote:
>On 4 Nov, 02:28, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which >information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us.> >Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these >emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
>
>Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
>you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
>sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
>looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
>and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
>religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
>term "feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
>rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence were a correct
>description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
>address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>
>Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
>knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
>religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
>understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
>demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
>Barrett's "Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
http://www.amazon.com/dp/159947381X
For those of us with very limited absorption speeds would Barrett be the
best one stop info source?
My interest is in knowing what to emphasize and what to avoid when
talking to creationists about evolution.
>Religion Compass 2007, vol 1 or Lawson's and McCauley's "Rethinking
>Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture" Cambridge University
>Press, 1990. One of the things you'll quickly learn when you read up
>on the actual cog science of religion is that researchers in the
>field, including atheists like Barrett or Boyer (P. Boyer, "Religious
>Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions," Trends in
>Cognitive Sciences 7, pp 119–24) do precisely not make the inference
>from a cognitive explanation of religion to its its invalidity - the
>genetic fallacy you commit and which can, for in principle,
>methodological reasons, not be supported from cognitive science
>research.
>
>>
>> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. >We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we >can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft.
>
>As "just so" stories in evolutionary theory go, that one is as bad as
>they come. No data is given to support the view, no references to the
>relevant literature. Pima facie, it is highly implausible: Belief
>in an afterlife in particular would be the opposite of adaptacious -
>much better for a brain worried about death to focus on real threats
>like the big predator behind you than giving you a unrealistic
>"everything will be all right" message. Which is why proper
>scientific evolutionary theories of religion tend to focus on
>religion as an overshoot of tendencies to increases, not decrease our
>anxiety levels (so e.g . Boyer in the work cited above)
>
>> Unfortunately, the raft is actually >a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
>
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Kermit
Nov 5, 2012, 12:14:19 PM11/5/12
to
On 4 Nov, 07:52, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
If that is what "God" refers to, then what does it mean to say that
someone is a theist?
Theists and atheists generally agree that they disagree on a
particular subject, and I don't thank they disagree on whether or not
"all that is" exists.
kermit
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
someone is a theist?
Theists and atheists generally agree that they disagree on a
particular subject, and I don't thank they disagree on whether or not
"all that is" exists.
kermit
Kermit
Nov 5, 2012, 12:23:40 PM11/5/12
to
On 3 Nov, 18:28, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us. Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft. Unfortunately, the raft is actually a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
I was raised fundamentalist (but it didn't take), and used to think as
> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us. Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
> Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft. Unfortunately, the raft is actually a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
you do. Certainly the fear of death plays a large role, and is the
major player in some people. But I see almost the same social and
psychological dynamics in Tea Partiers, global warming denialists, and
some others, many of whom are unchurched. I think tribal identify may
play a larger role for many of these folks, possibly even the
majority. They like certainty, they like simple explanations, they
like to hate the Other, and often use the contrast to define
themselves. If you present evidence that they are wrong, they double
down on the denial and seem to get membership status points for that
determined denial.
Religion is not necessarily pathological. There may of course be other
motives not included in the brief references above; for example, the
devoted scientist or musician seem very similar to some religious
personality types.
kermit
Kermit
Nov 5, 2012, 12:39:44 PM11/5/12
to
> Belief
> in an afterlife in particular would be the opposite of adaptacious -
> much better for a brain worried about death to focus on real threats
> like the big predator behind you than giving you a unrealistic
> "everything will be all right" message.
them.
Human women are in grave medical danger when they give birth - this is
not an adaptive trait. It is the *result of an adaptive trait - our
big brains - combined with the adaptive physiology of our mammalian
bodies.
So too does our adaptive instinct for survival conflict with our
adaptive ability to plan ahead and make complex conclusions from data
at hand. We realize we are going to die, and this sets up a conflict
that in some folks seems to results in constant stress, or denial,
etc.
How big a role it plays in religion is another matter.
> Which is why proper
> scientific evolutionary theories of religion tend to focus on
> religion as an overshoot of tendencies to increases, not decrease our
> anxiety levels (so e.g . Boyer in the work cited above)
other process, of course), and is a way of decreasing them? I have not
read Boyer on much of anyone else on this. I do know that
fundamentalists act very much like someone whose life is threatened
when their beliefs are challenged, especially if you have clear and
hard-to-deny evidence. But perhaps it's their membership in good
standing within their social group or tribe, or something else deeply
tied up with their sense of worth or security.
>
> > Unfortunately, the raft is actually >a fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best learn to swim.
Burkhard
Nov 5, 2012, 1:55:00 PM11/5/12
to
aspect is adaptive, but given his mangled writing you may well be
wright tha the meant "something " (whatever that is) else
>
> How big a role it plays in religion is another matter.
>
> > Which is why proper
> > scientific evolutionary theories of religion tend to focus on
> > religion as an overshoot of tendencies to increases, not decrease our
> > anxiety levels (so e.g . Boyer in the work cited above)
>
> Do you mean that religion is a result of sufficient anxiety (plus
> other process, of course), and is a way of decreasing them? I have not
> read Boyer on much of anyone else on this
ontology was adaptive - the unseen sabre tooth tiger is even more
dangerous than the one you can spot straight away. Given how dangerous
they are, increasing the number of false positives (worrying there may
be one if you see the smallest of signs) is better than having lots of
false negatives (even one can be deadly) . So we learned to reason
about dangers we can't see - and gods with temper tantrums are then a
logical extension. So the "god instinct" was adaptive because it kept
us worried - which then possible was reinforced when it acquired a
role to increase cooperation. The problem with cooperation are always
free riders, the answer to free riders is punishment, the condition
for punishment is surveillance. So if ou think tha something invisible
is always looking at you, this may help develop the necessary social
glue.
Or so the argument that you find in some of the literature goes.
Burkhard
Nov 5, 2012, 2:05:14 PM11/5/12
to
On 5 Nov, 15:47, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 06:26:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
It outlines the main schools of though, indicates were "more research
is needed", does not commit itself to a monocausal explanation, shows
what empirical evidence we have that makes it more than a "just so
story" and also it explicitly and rightly cautious about the "scope"
of the results when used outside the scientific field.
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 06:26:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 4 Nov, 02:28, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which >information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us.> >Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these >emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
> >Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
> >you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
> >sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
> >looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
> >and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
> >religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
> >term �"feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
> >rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence �were a correct
> >description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
> >address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>
> >Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
> >knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
> >religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
> >understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
> >demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
> >Barrett's �"Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
>
> I note that a newer work is available for $7.99 in an electronic format:http://www.amazon.com/dp/159947381X
>
> For those of us with very limited absorption speeds would Barrett be the
> best one stop info source?
This more pop science paper by him is indeed a good intro I think:
>
>
>
> >On 4 Nov, 02:28, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which >information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us.> >Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these >emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>
> >Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
> >you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
> >sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
> >looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
> >and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
> >religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
> >term �"feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
> >rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence �were a correct
> >description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
> >address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>
> >Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
> >knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
> >religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
> >understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
> >demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
> >Barrett's �"Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
>
> I note that a newer work is available for $7.99 in an electronic format:http://www.amazon.com/dp/159947381X
>
> For those of us with very limited absorption speeds would Barrett be the
> best one stop info source?
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
It outlines the main schools of though, indicates were "more research
is needed", does not commit itself to a monocausal explanation, shows
what empirical evidence we have that makes it more than a "just so
story" and also it explicitly and rightly cautious about the "scope"
of the results when used outside the scientific field.
eridanus
Nov 5, 2012, 2:13:00 PM11/5/12
to
El lunes, 5 de noviembre de 2012 14:52:57 UTC, Burkhard escribió:
> On 5 Nov, 14:27, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > El lunes, 5 de noviembre de 2012 11:42:57 UTC, Bill �escribi :
> On 5 Nov, 14:27, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
of cognition.
I tend to think that coordination and knowledge about the media were
evolving at the same time. For humans, specially in their first million
years had a need (it is my hypothesis) to go in bands, for they would have
more probabilities of survival. Think of powerful predators, like lions
and cheetahs, they have more probabilities of survival, when they go in
little bands of brothers. It is easier to to hunt, and it is easier to
keep the prey if the is a band of two or three brothers, than if they go
alone. But two or three young lions are not match for a pack of hyenas
that want to rob the young lions of their prey. I am talking of young
lions that had to fend for themselves after being kicked out of the pride
where they were born and raised till becoming adults.
Eridanus
eridanus
Nov 5, 2012, 2:48:08 PM11/5/12
to
jars of beer with him, to start believing. I do not trust any stranger,
then, why am I going to put my faith in god? He had never come to visit
me when I was full of shit. He had never presented to me, telling, "hi,
John. how are you! I am god. I had seen you alone and had come to chat
with you for a while. Have you any problems? You can talk to me with
full confidence, as I were your best friend from childhood."
Then as I am a little hesitant and unsure, I reply to him: "What sort of
nuts you are? I never had met anyone that calls himself a god. Do you
mean you can perform miracles and all that pile of lies?"
"Yea!" Replied god. "I am that sort of chap. I can perform miracles,
from time to time. Not too often to make myself more hard to believe on.
But I think you are a good guy, and I wanted to make some wonderful tricks
to you."
"Wonderful tricks? Like what?"
"You tell me any shit, and I would perform for you a few miracles."
"Can you by example provide me with a cup of coffee and cream?"
"You wanted with sugar or without?"
"With sugar is better."
"It is very easy."
then god, produces a cup from his hand and put it on coffee table. Then,
with a clap of his fingers he produce a coffee pot, then a little jar with
cream. Then a little nice cup with sugar and a little spoon. He then
pour coffee on the cup, then he pours milk, and asked me, "You want a little
spoon of sugar or two?" I replied, "two spoonfuls please." And god put
on the cup of coffee two spoonfuls of sugar.
I was amazed and could not believe it. "You are still doubting" commented
god. "Take a sip at the coffee and tell me if it is a good coffee."
I sipped a lite coffee and it was delicious. "It is very good" I told
god. "But you are still doubting" said god. "Then, do you want to watch
any other wonder?"
I asked god, "can you reverse everything back at the previous state?"
Then, I saw the cup of coffee-cream the sugar was coming out of the cup all
dry and fell back into the little cup of sugar. Then, the coffee began to
turn on the cup and started to separate the coffee from the cream. Then,
the I saw like a little jet of cream jumping back and falling on the little
cream jar. and the coffee on the cup jump back to the coffee pot. Now I
watched on the cup of coffee and it was empty and dry clean.
Then, I was very happy for this guy that call himself god, was a very clever
guy performing tricks. I was so happy that I told the chap,
"you know! I thinking that we are gonna be good friends. Are you as good
cheating at poker? We can ruin all casinos of Las Vegas"
And good looked at me, with a malicious smile, and said, "sure. We can ruin
all casinos of las Vegas?"
"Then, are we going there?"
"No. I had those casinos as a punishments for adults that do not understand
maths. All humans had to develop an intelligence and the players in Las Vegas, do not put attention in the class of maths when they were boys."
Eridanus
then, if one lacks this experience, there is not any reason to believe
in god.
Burkhard
Nov 5, 2012, 3:03:45 PM11/5/12
to
his attitude to religion, it is more on how he writes and argues in
general - which I think , uhmm, is "not that convincing?" After all,
he is the professional philosopher of these four, and should know
better. With Dawkins, you sort of know when he writes in a
professional capacity, and when he feels the urge to venture into
areas he knows nothing about - as bad as I consider the God Delusion
to be, that does not detract from the value of the Ancestor's tale or
The Greatest Show on Earth. The one exception possible his stuff on
memes, (which probably set back the scientific study of cultural
transmission by decades) and from which he seems to have distanced
himself.
With Dennet by contrast, I think science and metaphyscis are all over
the place and so much intertwined that they are difficult to separate.
that goes well beyond the issue of religion, he pushes a reductionist
ontology on all issues. This is then supported by often cherry picked
or very superficial accounts of scientific findings, that may (but
should not) impress some philosophers with lab-coat envy. Conversely,
where he fancies himself as making contribution to actual science, I'd
say his ultra-adaptionism that goes even beyond Dawkins' is not
something actual working biologists embrace (or indeed should)
On his "Breaking the Spell", there is a good review (in my opinion) by
Geertz, a choice quote: "The worst thing about the book is that the
cognitive part is poorly done. In fact, one might
claim that Dennett has trivialized serious work being done by Pascal
Boyer, Scott Atran, E. Thomas Lawson, Robert N. McCauley, Dan Sperber,
Harvey Whitehouse, Nicholas Humphrey
and others. I am all for sharing knowledge with readers who are not
familiar with the terminology and methods of the cognitive sciences.
Many cognitive scientists are extremely good at
popularizing their work without compromising their integrity. Dennett
has not only placed the cognitive science of religion in a poorly
argued and hostile context, he hasn't even introduced that
science properly."
Geertz, Armin W.: How Not to Do the Cognitive Science of Religion
Today, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, Volume 20, Number
1, 2008 , pp. 7-21
Bill
Nov 5, 2012, 6:19:49 PM11/5/12
to
and Atran. Cognitive psychology is not my field, but as an outsider I
could not see that Dennett had badly misrepresented their ideas. It's
obvious the Geertz didn't find much to like. I'll read Dennett with
ore caution.
Also, I may be such a reductionist myself that I breeze right past
whatever you find objectionable in Dennett's ontological reductionism.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 5, 2012, 8:52:08 PM11/5/12
to
No? Well, if you are posting for us atheists why not read up a bit on cognitive psychology of religion first? That people believe in God to avoid the fear of death is an old argument often used to dismiss theism, but it's hardly the leading explanation for the evolution and persistence of religion.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 5, 2012, 9:23:40 PM11/5/12
to
Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
>
> you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
>
> sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
>
> looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
>
> and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
>
> religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
>
> term "feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
>
> rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence were a correct
>
> description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
>
> address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
Logical fallacy!? The explanation I have posited is of the emotional association only. You want referrences to laws of behavior in the mind? Just type it in and look it up. I have no idea where your coming from when you tell me that my structure is flawed. I don't care if it's not perfectly structured to suit your critique. What types of theists that are NOT emotionally associating that "god feeling" with fear and love and how is THAT relevant!?
>
> you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
>
> sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
>
> looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
>
> and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
>
> religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
>
> term "feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
>
> rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence were a correct
>
> description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
>
> address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>
> Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
>
> knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
>
> religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
>
> understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
>
> demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
>
> Barrett's "Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
>
> Religion Compass 2007, vol 1 or Lawson's and McCauley's "Rethinking
>
> Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture" Cambridge University
>
> Press, 1990. One of the things you'll quickly learn when you read up
>
> on the actual cog science of religion is that researchers in the
>
> field, including atheists like Barrett or Boyer (P. Boyer, "Religious
>
> Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions," Trends in
>
> Cognitive Sciences 7, pp 119�24) do precisely not make the inference
>
> from a cognitive explanation of religion to its its invalidity - the
>
> genetic fallacy you commit and which can, for in principle,
>
> methodological reasons, not be supported from cognitive science
>
> research.
>
I don't have to be an expert in cognative science research to know about emotional states of mind. I do however, understand what I'm talking about in this context.
> Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
>
> knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
>
> religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
>
> understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
>
> demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
>
> Barrett's "Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
>
> Religion Compass 2007, vol 1 or Lawson's and McCauley's "Rethinking
>
> Religion: Connecting Cognition and Culture" Cambridge University
>
> Press, 1990. One of the things you'll quickly learn when you read up
>
> on the actual cog science of religion is that researchers in the
>
> field, including atheists like Barrett or Boyer (P. Boyer, "Religious
>
> Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions," Trends in
>
> Cognitive Sciences 7, pp 119�24) do precisely not make the inference
>
> from a cognitive explanation of religion to its its invalidity - the
>
> genetic fallacy you commit and which can, for in principle,
>
> methodological reasons, not be supported from cognitive science
>
> research.
>
>
> >
>
> > Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. >We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we >can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft.
>
>
>
> As "just so" stories in evolutionary theory go, that one is as bad as
>
> they come. No data is given to support the view, no references to the
>
> relevant literature. Pima facie, it is highly implausible: Belief
>
> in an afterlife in particular would be the opposite of adaptacious -
>
> much better for a brain worried about death to focus on real threats
>
> like the big predator behind you than giving you a unrealistic
>
> "everything will be all right" message. Which is why proper
>
> scientific evolutionary theories of religion tend to focus on
>
> religion as an overshoot of tendencies to increases, not decrease our
>
> anxiety levels (so e.g . Boyer in the work cited above)
>
I've studied aspects of the subconscious well enough to understand how a preacher gives suggestive commands to people who don't understand hypnotism enough to have a defense for them. You don't need a "predator behind you" to program messages into unsuspecting minds. Sorry, but if you want to cite my post as junk, I don't care. I'm not writing this for scientific peer review and I don't care if you want referrences.
> >
>
> > Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we experience. >We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life. Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally terrifying. So, to be told that we >can survive death by believing in god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling to the saftey of this raft.
>
>
>
> As "just so" stories in evolutionary theory go, that one is as bad as
>
> they come. No data is given to support the view, no references to the
>
> relevant literature. Pima facie, it is highly implausible: Belief
>
> in an afterlife in particular would be the opposite of adaptacious -
>
> much better for a brain worried about death to focus on real threats
>
> like the big predator behind you than giving you a unrealistic
>
> "everything will be all right" message. Which is why proper
>
> scientific evolutionary theories of religion tend to focus on
>
> religion as an overshoot of tendencies to increases, not decrease our
>
> anxiety levels (so e.g . Boyer in the work cited above)
>
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 5, 2012, 9:44:57 PM11/5/12
to
Just to make things more clear because some people think my writing structure is flawed, I made no assertations to WHY theists believe in god, only their emotional "god feeling" in place of knowing.
Robert Camp
Nov 5, 2012, 9:48:01 PM11/5/12
to
more interested in offering a serious analysis than simply attacking
religion.
RLC
Friar Broccoli
Nov 5, 2012, 10:01:51 PM11/5/12
to
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:05:14 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>On 5 Nov, 15:47, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 06:26:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 4 Nov, 02:28, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which >information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us.> >Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these >emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>>
>> >Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
>> >you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
>> >sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
>> >looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
>> >and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
>> >religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
>> >term �"feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
>> >rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence �were a correct
>> >description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
>> >address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>>
>> >Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
>> >knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
>> >religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
>> >understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
>> >demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
>> >Barrett's �"Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
>>
>> I note that a newer work is available for $7.99 in an electronic format:http://www.amazon.com/dp/159947381X
>>
>> For those of us with very limited absorption speeds would Barrett be the
>> best one stop info source?
.
>This more pop science paper by him is indeed a good intro I think:
>http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
>
>It outlines the main schools of though, indicates were "more research
>is needed", does not commit itself to a monocausal explanation, shows
>what empirical evidence we have that makes it more than a "just so
>story" and also it explicitly and rightly cautious about the "scope"
>of the results when used outside the scientific field.
It appears that the best way to proceed is to ascribe agency to
life/evolution (directly or via God) - but how to do that without
Harshman and Dawkins haranguing me from the wings. And forget about
folks over 25 since they'll just forget anyway - a pattern I vaguely
remember seeing with almost every creationists I've ever met.
Since forms that reproduce do persist, I suppose it is correct to
ascribe will/direction to the life force, if it can be said to be true
for anything.
wrote:
>On 5 Nov, 15:47, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 06:26:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 4 Nov, 02:28, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't understand a few things. Association: This is a behavioral law that the brain uses to attach to a concept. Emotions are the feelings with which >information is sometimes associated. Our emotions stem from our subconscious and are reactions to situations from our environment. The strength of the emotional reaction depends upon how the situation affects us.> >Situations that cause great change, such as loss, death, discomfort, hardship, failure, unwanted change, etc. affect our emotions strongly and as such we form associations with these events, thus we experience these >emotions again when in similar situations or dwell on them.
>>
>> >Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
>> >you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
>> >sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
>> >looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
>> >and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
>> >religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
>> >term �"feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
>> >rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence �were a correct
>> >description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
>> >address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>>
>> >Content wise, it is a mixed bit of cod psychology that shows not
>> >knowledge of the current literature on the cognitive theory of
>> >religion, or the evolutionary theory of religion. Theists may "not
>> >understand a few things" about cognition, but you equally fail to
>> >demonstrate any understanding of the topic. You could start with J
>> >Barrett's �"Cognitive Science of Religion: What Is It and Why Is It?"
>>
>> I note that a newer work is available for $7.99 in an electronic format:http://www.amazon.com/dp/159947381X
>>
>> For those of us with very limited absorption speeds would Barrett be the
>> best one stop info source?
>This more pop science paper by him is indeed a good intro I think:
>http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
>
>It outlines the main schools of though, indicates were "more research
>is needed", does not commit itself to a monocausal explanation, shows
>what empirical evidence we have that makes it more than a "just so
>story" and also it explicitly and rightly cautious about the "scope"
>of the results when used outside the scientific field.
life/evolution (directly or via God) - but how to do that without
Harshman and Dawkins haranguing me from the wings. And forget about
folks over 25 since they'll just forget anyway - a pattern I vaguely
remember seeing with almost every creationists I've ever met.
Since forms that reproduce do persist, I suppose it is correct to
ascribe will/direction to the life force, if it can be said to be true
for anything.
jonathan
Nov 5, 2012, 11:36:34 PM11/5/12
to
"Josh Miles" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:k78maf$vpg$1...@dont-email.me...
For instance, a market force, tell me if you believe
in them and their goodness. Then tell me exactly
And when you conclude they not only exist, but
cannot be precisely defined, but also provide the
whole with direction towards the better solution
....creation, then you can see this definition of god
reflects the truth of our reality.
Nature is cyclic in character, a natural tautology.
s
>
Earle Jones
Nov 6, 2012, 12:06:13 AM11/6/12
to
In article <a5f65391-03d8-4ecf...@googlegroups.com>,
*
Theists feel good because they have certainty.
No person with any training in science has any certainty. They have
explanations for their observations. Some explanations are better than
others.
"For those who need the amniotic warmth of certainty,
dogma is the proper womb."
--Ray Ginger, Six Days or Forever, 1958
(the story of the Scopes trial)
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
--Ashley Montague
earle
*
Theists feel good because they have certainty.
No person with any training in science has any certainty. They have
explanations for their observations. Some explanations are better than
others.
"For those who need the amniotic warmth of certainty,
dogma is the proper womb."
--Ray Ginger, Six Days or Forever, 1958
(the story of the Scopes trial)
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
--Ashley Montague
earle
*
Earle Jones
Nov 6, 2012, 12:08:16 AM11/6/12
to
In article <k78maf$vpg$1...@dont-email.me>, Josh Miles <n...@thanks.com>
wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 9:46 AM, jonathan wrote:
> > "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
> >>
> >> maybe we smell god
> >>
> >
> >
> > What if God were defined as "the sum total of the creative
> > properties of the universe."?
*
Good idea.
But don't refer to it as "Him."
And don't worship it for the fear of burning in hell for all eternity.
earle
*
wrote:
> On 11/4/2012 9:46 AM, jonathan wrote:
> > "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
> >>
> >> maybe we smell god
> >>
> >
> >
> > What if God were defined as "the sum total of the creative
> > properties of the universe."?
Good idea.
But don't refer to it as "Him."
And don't worship it for the fear of burning in hell for all eternity.
earle
*
Earle Jones
Nov 6, 2012, 12:09:24 AM11/6/12
to
In article <otCdnaAsNPOxCQXN...@giganews.com>,
Do you know what 'know' means?
earle
*
"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Josh Miles" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:k78maf$vpg$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 11/4/2012 9:46 AM, jonathan wrote:
> >> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
> >>>
> >>> maybe we smell god
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> What if God were defined as "the sum total of the creative
> >> properties of the universe."?
> >>
> >> Atheists keep insisting on proof of God, when God is
> >> a term for that which is indefinable, but which we
> >> know exists.
*
> "Josh Miles" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:k78maf$vpg$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 11/4/2012 9:46 AM, jonathan wrote:
> >> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
> >>>
> >>> maybe we smell god
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> What if God were defined as "the sum total of the creative
> >> properties of the universe."?
> >>
> >> Atheists keep insisting on proof of God, when God is
> >> a term for that which is indefinable, but which we
> >> know exists.
Do you know what 'know' means?
earle
*
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 6, 2012, 1:34:38 AM11/6/12
to
> That's part of the problem. You'd care about those things if you were
>
> more interested in offering a serious analysis than simply attacking
>
> religion.
>
>
>
> RLC
I am not attacking religion. I am stating assertations about emotions and how theists think they feel god because of those emotions. I don't know of any theists, who have told me they felt god, that understands just what it was they felt. These are emotional feelings, nothing more.
>
> more interested in offering a serious analysis than simply attacking
>
> religion.
>
>
>
> RLC
eridanus
Nov 6, 2012, 4:29:44 AM11/6/12
to
El martes, 6 de noviembre de 2012 05:06:13 UTC, Earle Jones escribi�:
very good and complete this post. Also the cites are very good.
Eridanus
Eridanus
Burkhard
Nov 6, 2012, 7:31:30 AM11/6/12
to
On 6 Nov, 02:27, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
> > you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
>
> > sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
>
> > looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
>
> > and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
>
> > religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
>
> > term �"feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
>
> > rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence �were a correct
>
> > description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
>
> > address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>
> Logical fallacy!? The explanation I have posited is of the emotional association only.
You haven't posted much of an "explanation" in any way, shape or form.
> Bit of a mess, both in terms of content and structure. Structure wise,
> > you make the first logical mistake pretty much after the first
>
> > sentence (discounting for a moment that the first sentence itself
>
> > looks pretty much like a strawman - no citations to external sources,
>
> > and who are these "theist" in particular? all of them? All
>
> > religions? ) The next logical mistake is the equivocation from the
>
> > term �"feeling" in the first sentence to the "feeling good" in the
>
> > rest of the paragraph. So even if the first sentence �were a correct
>
> > description of the position of (some) theists, the rest would fail to
>
> > address it without quiet a number of further assumptions.
>
> Logical fallacy!? The explanation I have posited is of the emotional association only.
You've made a couple of claims which you probably think show
something, but to the extend one can make out what it is are riddled
with logical errors
>You want referrences to laws of behavior in the mind?
an idea what it actually is you try to say
>Just type it in and look it up. I have no idea where your coming from when you tell me that my structure is flawed.
out that your argument has several major logical issues, apart from
being more or less bereft of content.
> I don't care if it's not perfectly structured to suit your critique. What types of theists that are NOT emotionally associating that "god feeling" with fear and love and how is THAT relevant!?
>
sentence does not parse syntactically, so no idea what you try to
express.
<snip>
> > As "just so" stories in evolutionary theory go, that one is as bad as
>
> > they come. No data is given to support the view, no references to the
>
> > relevant literature. Pima facie, it is highly implausible: � �Belief
>
> > in an afterlife in particular would be the opposite of adaptacious -
>
> > much better for a brain worried about death to focus on real threats
>
> > like the big predator behind you than giving you a �unrealistic
>
> > "everything will be all right" message. Which is why proper
>
> > scientific �evolutionary theories of religion tend to focus on
>
> > religion as an overshoot of tendencies to increases, not decrease our
>
> > anxiety levels (so e.g . Boyer in the work cited above)
>
> � I've studied aspects of the subconscious well enough to understand how a preacher gives suggestive commands to people who don't understand hypnotism enough to have a defense for them. You don't need a "predator behind you" to program messages into unsuspecting minds. Sorry, but if you want to cite my post as junk, I don't care. I'm not writing this for scientific peer review
amongst the regulars who are discussing in the main scientific
issues? For ill informed rants, go to alt.atheism or alt.atheism
moderated where you will find lots of like minded people who "think"
of themselves science literate (with often little to show for and
against all the evidence) and most certainly will give you a lot of
backslapping. Here, you'll get asked by both atheists and theists to
back up your claims.
>and I don't care if you want referrences.
don't take posters serious who can't back up their claims.
Robert Camp
Nov 6, 2012, 8:03:03 AM11/6/12
to
On Nov 5, 10:37 pm, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's part of the problem. You'd care about those things if you were
>
> > more interested in offering a serious analysis than simply attacking
>
> > religion.
>
> > RLC
>
> I am not attacking religion.
My mistake, then. But just for the record, "...fully indoctrinated and
> > That's part of the problem. You'd care about those things if you were
>
> > more interested in offering a serious analysis than simply attacking
>
> > religion.
>
> > RLC
>
> I am not attacking religion.
don't want to leave the matrix," could easily give the impression that
you are.
> I am stating assertations about emotions and how theists think they feel god because of those emotions. I don't know of any theists, who have told me they felt god, that understands just what it was they felt.
Maybe the problem is you just don't know many theists. Your
descriptions of what they feel and believe seem pretty simplistic to
me.
> These are emotional feelings, nothing more.
claims to scientific objectivity.
RLC
Burkhard
Nov 6, 2012, 8:38:45 AM11/6/12
to
experience is (also) emotional is neither necessary nor sufficient to
make inferences about its reliability, or the presence or absence of
any outside object that triggers it. Very often, feelings of pleasure,
fear or abhorrence are there for a reason, that is there is something
out there pleasurable, fearful or not-to-be-eaten - that I experience
sunlight on my skin as pleasurable doesn't mean there is no sun, just
that (reasonable) exposure to sunlight is good for me, so that
evolution selects for the co-occurrence of the pleasurable impression
with the occurrence of the external event.
By contrast, emotionally neutral sense data can also be unreliable -
see the various optical illusions.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 6, 2012, 9:46:18 AM11/6/12
to
Burkhard, If you don't understand what I have posted, that is your flawed ability to understand simple statements. Instead of making an argument that you disagree on, you attack the way I write. I don't know if it's your desire to argue or your incapability to make sense of words that are not extremely complex, but you have some issues that I don't care to deal with. Get a grip.
Burkhard
Nov 6, 2012, 10:24:15 AM11/6/12
to
On 6 Nov, 14:47, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
It actually helps to include the post you reply to, which is basic
usenet netiquette
> Burkhard, If you don't understand what I have posted, that is your flawed ability to understand simple statements. Instead of making an argument that you disagree on, you attack the way I write.
Nope, I gave arguments why your post is both a) logically flawed and
b) flawed in content ( with references to the relevant literature
provided) That I also highlight in addition that some of your
sentences are so ungrammatical that they are unintelligible simply
serves to explain why my response is based on a guess what you are
trying to say, which may differ from what you think you are saying.
> I don't know if it's your desire to argue or your incapability to make sense of words that are not extremely complex, but you have some issues that I don't care to deal with. Get a grip.
If you post in a public forum, people will comment on your posts -
especially if they happen to know a bit about the subject matter. Get
a grip.
It actually helps to include the post you reply to, which is basic
usenet netiquette
> Burkhard, If you don't understand what I have posted, that is your flawed ability to understand simple statements. Instead of making an argument that you disagree on, you attack the way I write.
b) flawed in content ( with references to the relevant literature
provided) That I also highlight in addition that some of your
sentences are so ungrammatical that they are unintelligible simply
serves to explain why my response is based on a guess what you are
trying to say, which may differ from what you think you are saying.
> I don't know if it's your desire to argue or your incapability to make sense of words that are not extremely complex, but you have some issues that I don't care to deal with. Get a grip.
especially if they happen to know a bit about the subject matter. Get
a grip.
Bill
Nov 6, 2012, 1:00:02 PM11/6/12
to
You said:
"Theists who say they know god exists because they feel god, doesn't
understand a few things."
why they think they know god exists, (2) theists are wrong to conclude
that god exists because they feel that He does, or (3) something else.
Whatever is was that you meant, you next seem to go on to describe
emotional reactions to the thought of death. So possibly you might
have meant that theists fail to understand that their feelings are
derived from the fear of death and therefore (genetic fallacy coming)
tell them nothing about the existence of God. But I could be wrong;
your prose is not particularly clear.
Then you go on to say:
"Such is the way our minds desire for survival. Death is an event that
our minds wish to avoid. The emotions that flood our brains when we
confront death and survive are are among the strongest feelings we
experience. We are constantly avoiding death whether the situation is
easy or difficult. Our brains are hard wired to choose life.
Ultimately we know that death will happen to us and that's emotionally
terrifying. So, to be told that we can survive death by believing in
god, an emotional association is tethered to that idea. The brain is
relieved to the fullest by this information and it will seek to cling
fishing line that you will be reeled in by if you cling to it. Best
learn to swim. "
It sure looks like you are saying that the mind, fearful of death, is
learn to swim. "
so relieved by the promises of religion that it accepts them. But I
could be reading you wrong. Others, too, seem to have had trouble
following your argument.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 6, 2012, 6:03:37 PM11/6/12
to
So why don't you answer a few questions for me since you proclaim to know that I'm wrong.
First, are you a theist and if so, what kind?
If it's not emotions that people feel when they say they "know god exists because they feel him", then what is it they feel when they say this?
First, are you a theist and if so, what kind?
If it's not emotions that people feel when they say they "know god exists because they feel him", then what is it they feel when they say this?
Friar Broccoli
Nov 6, 2012, 8:38:22 PM11/6/12
to
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:03:37 -0800 (PST), Shawn Lorenzana
<darthm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So why don't you answer a few questions for me since you proclaim to know that I'm wrong.
You're not so much wrong as incoherent. You claim as fact what you
<darthm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So why don't you answer a few questions for me since you proclaim to know that I'm wrong.
believe from intuition - which is what you (and I) think fundamentalists
do. If you have evidence that people believe in God because they fear
death you have not presented it.
>First, are you a theist and if so, what kind?
soul.
>If it's not emotions that people feel when they say they "know god exists because they feel him", then what is it they feel when they say this?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/95716da4df06f6d2
Burkhard provided a link to a summary of some recent research:
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
There is nothing wrong with presenting views as views. When you present
facts, evidence is needed.
My own view is that people of faith are intuitively certain they have an
immortal essence (soul), and that the world/universe must have been
created by a conscious agent (God). It's hard work to believe something
different - well it was hard for me.
Lots of people also enjoy being part of a faith group and helping
others. Being part of a chess, bridge or bingo group is nice, but (in
my view) you are less likely to be supported by other members in time of
need.
>On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:27:53 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> On 6 Nov, 14:47, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It actually helps to include the post you reply to, which is basic
>>
>> usenet netiquette
>>
>>
>>
>> > Burkhard, If you don't understand what I have posted, that is your flawed ability to understand simple statements. Instead of making an argument that you disagree on, you attack the way I write.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, I gave arguments why your post is both a) logically flawed and
>>
>> b) flawed in content ( with references to the relevant literature
>>
>> provided) That I also highlight in addition that some of your
>>
>> sentences are so ungrammatical that they are unintelligible simply
>>
>> serves to explain why my response is based on a guess what you are
>>
>> trying to say, which may differ from what you think you are saying.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I don't know if it's your desire to argue or your incapability to make sense of words that are not extremely complex, but you have some issues that I don't care to deal with. Get a grip.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you post in a public forum, people will comment on your posts -
>>
>> especially if they happen to know a bit about the subject matter. Get
>>
>> a grip.
Mike Duffy
Nov 6, 2012, 9:10:02 PM11/6/12
to
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:hedj98l44f9hs0tv4...@4ax.com:
> My own view is that people of faith are intuitively certain they have
> an immortal essence (soul), and that the world/universe must have been
> created by a conscious agent (God). It's hard work to believe
> something different - well it was hard for me.
My view is that those feelings are instinctive.
I share your beliefs despite them being at odds with how I feel.
Yes, it is difficult to allow reason to prevail over emotions.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
news:hedj98l44f9hs0tv4...@4ax.com:
> My own view is that people of faith are intuitively certain they have
> an immortal essence (soul), and that the world/universe must have been
> created by a conscious agent (God). It's hard work to believe
> something different - well it was hard for me.
I share your beliefs despite them being at odds with how I feel.
Yes, it is difficult to allow reason to prevail over emotions.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 6, 2012, 10:19:43 PM11/6/12
to
> You're not so much wrong as incoherent. You claim as fact what you
>
> believe from intuition - which is what you (and I) think fundamentalists
>
> do. If you have evidence that people believe in God because they fear
>
> death you have not presented it.
> There is nothing wrong with presenting views as views. When you present
>
> facts, evidence is needed.
In answer to this kind of response, which strikes me as not understanding the things that I understand, what kind of evidence do you need? What evidence could there be other than some basic understanding of how the subconscious operates? My advice to you is to educate yourself as I have done on the subconsciousness and it's operations. For a reference, you can find this information on the web, just type it in. One more thing. I have not said that my original post is the reason WHY theists believe in god, only that they think the emotional feeling they have about god is not a valid substitute for knowing he exists. Since no one has sensed god through any of their 5 senses, theists don't have any way to sense god other than through their emotions, which is an illusion. As I have said before, the only thing they do sense, is the emotions themselves and an association is made based upon the words of a preacher or similar religious leader. I'm not an expert in the laws of behavior for the brain, but I have done
>
> facts, evidence is needed.
some research over the years. Here is some of the laws I'm familiar with:
Association, Domination, Reverse Action (AKA reverse psychology), Repedative Action. There's more but it's been awhile since I've brushed up my knowledge of the subject.
Glenn
Nov 6, 2012, 10:47:19 PM11/6/12
to
"Shawn Lorenzana" <darthm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4803dafc-5352-4c10...@googlegroups.com...
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 6, 2012, 10:58:19 PM11/6/12
to
> Have you considered becoming a brain surgeon?
Friar Broccoli
Nov 8, 2012, 10:05:22 AM11/8/12
to
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 19:19:43 -0800 (PST), Shawn Lorenzana
<darthm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're not so much wrong as incoherent. You claim as fact what you
>>
>> believe from intuition - which is what you (and I) think fundamentalists
>>
>> do. If you have evidence that people believe in God because they fear
>>
>> death you have not presented it.
>> There is nothing wrong with presenting views as views. When you present
>>
>> facts, evidence is needed.
>
> In answer to this kind of response, which strikes me as not understanding the
> things that I understand, what kind of evidence do you need? What evidence
> could there be other than some basic understanding of how the subconscious
> operates?
When I was a child (50+ years ago) people may have thought
<darthm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're not so much wrong as incoherent. You claim as fact what you
>>
>> believe from intuition - which is what you (and I) think fundamentalists
>>
>> do. If you have evidence that people believe in God because they fear
>>
>> death you have not presented it.
>> There is nothing wrong with presenting views as views. When you present
>>
>> facts, evidence is needed.
>
> In answer to this kind of response, which strikes me as not understanding the
> things that I understand, what kind of evidence do you need? What evidence
> could there be other than some basic understanding of how the subconscious
> operates?
"subconscious" had some useful meaning. Now it just refers a collection
of mental procedures and kludges some of which are completely outside
conscious control, some of which we make up retrospective excuses for,
and some of which control consciousness rather than the other way around
etc.
A vague reference to the "subconscious" has the same value as a
directive from God.
As to "what kind of evidence do you need" - specific evidence from a
hopefully replicated study. Burkhard provided a summary of some
examples here:
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
Did you read even this?
> My advice to you is to educate yourself as I have done on the
> subconsciousness and it's operations. For a reference, you can find this
> information on the web, just type it in.
> One more thing. I have not said that my original post is the reason WHY
> theists believe in god, only that they think the emotional feeling they have
> about god is not a valid substitute for knowing he exists.
> Since no one has sensed god through any of their 5 senses, theists don't have
> any way to sense god other than through their emotions, which is an illusion.
illusions. Red, for example, is a mental construct of a wavelength of
light. The people around you are much more complex constructs from very
limited information. Inferring a conscious God from creation is no
different in form from inferring consciousness in your mother.
> As I have said before, the only thing they do sense, is the emotions
> themselves and an association is made based upon the words of a preacher or
> similar religious leader. I'm not an expert in the laws of behavior for the
> brain, but I have done some research over the years. Here is some of the laws
> I'm familiar with: Association, Domination, Reverse Action (AKA reverse
> psychology), Repedative Action. There's more but it's been awhile since I've
> brushed up my knowledge of the subject.
we "knew" is false. With respect to the brain's construction of
reality, what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do know.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 8, 2012, 5:37:36 PM11/8/12
to
@ Friar Broccoli
> Did you read even this?
> http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
No, I didn't and I don't need to. YOU need to bring an argument from whatever source you find and PRESENT IT. You have not done this. I'm not going to go on a hunt for your information.
> This is just sad.
Don't be sad, be informative.
> > One more thing. I have not said that my original post is the reason WHY
>
> > theists believe in god, only that they think the emotional feeling they have
>
> > about god is not a valid substitute for knowing he exists.
>
>
>
> I cannot figure out if the above means anything.
Then reread it until you do.
> > Since no one has sensed god through any of their 5 senses, theists don't have
>
> > any way to sense god other than through their emotions, which is an illusion.
>
>
>
> You have not thought this thru. *All* sense based mental constructs are
>
> illusions. Red, for example, is a mental construct of a wavelength of
>
> light. The people around you are much more complex constructs from very
>
> limited information. Inferring a conscious God from creation is no
>
> different in form from inferring consciousness in your mother.
No, you have sensory information about your mothers consciousness. You do NOT have sensory information on god. Yes, you are correct about minds constructs, however this is not entirely acurate of our ability to understand reality with regard to illusions. We use our senses to map our environment in the brain. What we sense are not "illusions" in the same way we classify what an illusion is. Our senses tell us what's real based upon what we can test. What is not real is what our senses percieve as real, but prove to be otherwise. Otherwise nothing would be "real" and science wouldn't work at all. If I pick up a rock, I can see it, smell it, taste it if I put my tongue of it, feel it's weight when I hold it, and hear the sound it makes when it makes contact with your head if I threw it at you, then based on my senses and yours, the rock is real and not an illusion. By contrast, if the rock was foam and I hit you in the head with it, you'd then percieve the rock to be foam, the illusion of it being something
other than what you thought it to be. My point in this analogy is that emotions that make the body "feel" them are not always understood by the person having them. When people watch a scary movie, they experience fear even though they're in no real danger. This is Association. Just like you would associate the rock with pain when I throw it at you. Foam or not. Well, before it hits you anyway.
Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
Shawn Lorenzana
> A vague reference to the "subconscious" has the same value as a
>
> directive from God.
It's not vague. It is what it is and how it functions. You want to understand it more, research it. It's "vague" to you because you don't have the info. Get to work, then come back here and make an argument against my point that shows you have researched it. You cannot read an article and expect to make your point based off that article. We need to have an understanding of what I know and what you know, then we can exchange information for the purpose of conversation. And what you know of this subject shows with your statements and your inability to comprehend mine.
>
> directive from God.
> Did you read even this?
No, I didn't and I don't need to. YOU need to bring an argument from whatever source you find and PRESENT IT. You have not done this. I'm not going to go on a hunt for your information.
> This is just sad.
Don't be sad, be informative.
> > One more thing. I have not said that my original post is the reason WHY
>
> > theists believe in god, only that they think the emotional feeling they have
>
> > about god is not a valid substitute for knowing he exists.
>
>
>
> I cannot figure out if the above means anything.
> > Since no one has sensed god through any of their 5 senses, theists don't have
>
> > any way to sense god other than through their emotions, which is an illusion.
>
>
>
> You have not thought this thru. *All* sense based mental constructs are
>
> illusions. Red, for example, is a mental construct of a wavelength of
>
> light. The people around you are much more complex constructs from very
>
> limited information. Inferring a conscious God from creation is no
>
> different in form from inferring consciousness in your mother.
other than what you thought it to be. My point in this analogy is that emotions that make the body "feel" them are not always understood by the person having them. When people watch a scary movie, they experience fear even though they're in no real danger. This is Association. Just like you would associate the rock with pain when I throw it at you. Foam or not. Well, before it hits you anyway.
Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
>
>
> > As I have said before, the only thing they do sense, is the emotions
>
> > themselves and an association is made based upon the words of a preacher or
>
> > similar religious leader. I'm not an expert in the laws of behavior for the
>
> > brain, but I have done some research over the years. Here is some of the laws
>
> > I'm familiar with: Association, Domination, Reverse Action (AKA reverse
>
> > psychology), Repedative Action. There's more but it's been awhile since I've
>
> > brushed up my knowledge of the subject.
>
>
>
> Well, there is a lot of new research - and we now know that much of what
>
> we "knew" is false. With respect to the brain's construction of
>
> reality, what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do know.
Again yes, you're correct that new information can overide old data. That's what science is about. However, until we have any such data, it is a futile assertion to assume it's all unreliable. Again, I ask you to refute my statements with information that I'm wrong, in your own words and with data that overides mine.
>
> > As I have said before, the only thing they do sense, is the emotions
>
> > themselves and an association is made based upon the words of a preacher or
>
> > similar religious leader. I'm not an expert in the laws of behavior for the
>
> > brain, but I have done some research over the years. Here is some of the laws
>
> > I'm familiar with: Association, Domination, Reverse Action (AKA reverse
>
> > psychology), Repedative Action. There's more but it's been awhile since I've
>
> > brushed up my knowledge of the subject.
>
>
>
> Well, there is a lot of new research - and we now know that much of what
>
> we "knew" is false. With respect to the brain's construction of
>
> reality, what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do know.
Shawn Lorenzana
Mike Duffy
Nov 8, 2012, 9:41:12 PM11/8/12
to
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:j8gn985lssn482ir5...@4ax.com:
> When I was a child (50+ years ago) people may have thought
> "subconscious" had some useful meaning. Now it just refers a
> collection of mental procedures and kludges some of which are
> completely outside conscious control, some of which we make up
> retrospective excuses for, and some of which control consciousness
> rather than the other way around etc.
>
> A vague reference to the "subconscious" has the same value as a
> directive from God.
science has not not yet explained, then this is essentially true enough to
be taken at face value.
(This is a sort of a twist on the "God of the Gaps" perspective.)
> With respect to the brain's construction of
> reality, what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do know.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Glenn
Nov 8, 2012, 10:40:28 PM11/8/12
to
"Mike Duffy" <Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote in message news:XnsA105DCA026...@94.75.214.39...
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 8, 2012, 11:58:32 PM11/8/12
to
> My point in this analogy is that emotions that make the body "feel" them are not always understood by the person having them.
I need to rewrite this part because it needs to be known that the body doesn't do the feeling, the brain is where all the action of feeling happens. The nervous system is just a sensory organ that feeds information to the brain.
What I should have said is that the body reacts to emotions from the brain and the brain then proccesses what it feels from your nervous system. An example: An emotional reaction to getting angry from someone pissing you off makes your body tense. Your brain notices your bodys reaction and you're aware of the physiological changes to your body. Since anger is generally not useful in most situations, the brain will try to calm the body down to help maintain clearer thinking, which is much more useful in important decision making matters.
Sometimes we don't always understand our emotions and don't know why we feel our body's reactions. Having a thorough understanding of yourself takes experience and education. To fall prey to the manipulations of others who do not have your best interest in mind is something to be avoided. And yes, there are those kinds of people in our environment.
eridanus
Nov 9, 2012, 4:47:04 AM11/9/12
to
El martes, 6 de noviembre de 2012 23:07:53 UTC, Shawn Lorenzana escribi�:
I believe god exists, for I take tea with him, every so often. He loves
tea, not milk, and a just a little spoon of sugar. I serve him Danish
cookies and he also loves to have a Jack Daniels glass sometimes.
I love him mostly for the conversation, and it is a good company also
playing poker. The best friend.
Eridanus
tea, not milk, and a just a little spoon of sugar. I serve him Danish
cookies and he also loves to have a Jack Daniels glass sometimes.
I love him mostly for the conversation, and it is a good company also
playing poker. The best friend.
Eridanus
Mike Duffy
Nov 9, 2012, 6:51:35 AM11/9/12
to
"Glenn" <glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:glennsheldon-k7hu8a$h0f$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> "Mike Duffy" <Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote in message
> news:XnsA105DCA026...@94.75.214.39...
>>
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
news:glennsheldon-k7hu8a$h0f$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> "Mike Duffy" <Use_guest...@website.in.sig> wrote in message
> news:XnsA105DCA026...@94.75.214.39...
>>
>> And some of what we don't know are things we cannot know.
>>
> How do you know?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
>>
> How do you know?
>
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Friar Broccoli
Nov 9, 2012, 9:35:57 AM11/9/12
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:37:36 -0800 (PST), Shawn Lorenzana
<darthm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>@ Friar Broccoli
.
>> A vague reference to the "subconscious" has the same value as a
>> directive from God.
>
> It's not vague.
Here is the first line from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious
"The term subconscious is used in many different contexts and has no
single or precise definition. This greatly limits its significance as a
definition-bearing concept, and in consequence the word tends to be
avoided in academic and scientific settings."
In short: "subconscious" IS vague, possibly meaningless.
> It is what it is and how it functions. You want to understand
> it more, research it. It's "vague" to you because you don't have the info. Get
> to work, then come back here and make an argument against my point that shows
> you have researched it. You cannot read an article and expect to make your
> point based off that article. We need to have an understanding of what I know
> and what you know, then we can exchange information for the purpose of
> conversation. And what you know of this subject shows with your statements and
> your inability to comprehend mine.
What you are telling me is to research the literature until I finally
convince myself that you are right. This is exactly the message I
regularly receive from fundamentalist Christians.
>> Did you read even this?
>> http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
.
> No, I didn't and I don't need to.
Not much point in our having a discussion if you're not willing to look
at a short summary of recent research methods/thinking. Nor are you
willing to provide a single explicit reference in support of your own
argument.
> YOU need to bring an argument from whatever
> source you find and PRESENT IT.
What?! You are the one who is *claiming* that you understand the
motives for other people's beliefs better than they understand it
themselves. Since you are the one making the claim, it is for you to
present supporting evidence. Vague references to an obsolete mental
model are not evidence.
<darthm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>@ Friar Broccoli
.
>> A vague reference to the "subconscious" has the same value as a
>> directive from God.
>
> It's not vague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious
"The term subconscious is used in many different contexts and has no
single or precise definition. This greatly limits its significance as a
definition-bearing concept, and in consequence the word tends to be
avoided in academic and scientific settings."
In short: "subconscious" IS vague, possibly meaningless.
> It is what it is and how it functions. You want to understand
> it more, research it. It's "vague" to you because you don't have the info. Get
> to work, then come back here and make an argument against my point that shows
> you have researched it. You cannot read an article and expect to make your
> point based off that article. We need to have an understanding of what I know
> and what you know, then we can exchange information for the purpose of
> conversation. And what you know of this subject shows with your statements and
> your inability to comprehend mine.
convince myself that you are right. This is exactly the message I
regularly receive from fundamentalist Christians.
>> Did you read even this?
>> http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_24-editionID_199-ArticleID_1826-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist%5Cpsy0411barrett2.pdf
> No, I didn't and I don't need to.
at a short summary of recent research methods/thinking. Nor are you
willing to provide a single explicit reference in support of your own
argument.
> YOU need to bring an argument from whatever
> source you find and PRESENT IT.
motives for other people's beliefs better than they understand it
themselves. Since you are the one making the claim, it is for you to
present supporting evidence. Vague references to an obsolete mental
model are not evidence.
Burkhard
Nov 9, 2012, 9:39:00 AM11/9/12
to
Burkhard
Nov 9, 2012, 9:40:23 AM11/9/12
to
On 9 Nov, 11:57, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig> wrote:
> "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote innews:glennsheldon-k7hu8a$h0f$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>
> > "Mike Duffy" <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig> wrote in message
prove, not what we can know. Indeed, the whole point of the theorems
is that we know more than we can prove (again, for a certain very
constraint notion of proof)
> "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote innews:glennsheldon-k7hu8a$h0f$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>
> > "Mike Duffy" <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig> wrote in message
> >news:XnsA105DCA026...@94.75.214.39...
>
> >> And some of what we don't know are things we cannot know.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
>
Ah, but they are limits to what we can (within certain constraints)
>
> >> And some of what we don't know are things we cannot know.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
>
prove, not what we can know. Indeed, the whole point of the theorems
is that we know more than we can prove (again, for a certain very
constraint notion of proof)
Burkhard
Nov 9, 2012, 10:08:57 AM11/9/12
to
On 8 Nov, 22:37, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Friar Broccoli
>
> > A vague reference to the "subconscious" has the same value as a
>
> > directive from God.
>
> It's not vague. It is what it is and how it functions. You want to understand it more, research it. It's "vague" to you because you don't have the info. Get to work, then come back here and make an argument against my point that shows you have researched it. You cannot read an article and expect to make your point based off that article. We need to have an understanding of what I know and what you know, then we can exchange information for the purpose of conversation. And what you know of this subject shows with your statements and your inability to comprehend mine.
>
> > Did you read even this?
> > http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_2...
> @ Friar Broccoli
>
> > A vague reference to the "subconscious" has the same value as a
>
> > directive from God.
>
> It's not vague. It is what it is and how it functions. You want to understand it more, research it. It's "vague" to you because you don't have the info. Get to work, then come back here and make an argument against my point that shows you have researched it. You cannot read an article and expect to make your point based off that article. We need to have an understanding of what I know and what you know, then we can exchange information for the purpose of conversation. And what you know of this subject shows with your statements and your inability to comprehend mine.
>
> > Did you read even this?
>
> No, I didn't and I don't need to. YOU need to bring an argument from whatever source you find and PRESENT IT. You have not done this. I'm not going to go on a hunt for your information.
>
> > This is just sad.
>
> Don't be sad, be informative.
>
> > > One more thing. I have not said that my original post is the reason WHY
>
> > > theists believe in god, only that they think the emotional feeling they have
>
> > > about god is not a valid substitute for knowing he exists.
>
> > I cannot figure out if the above means anything.
>
> Then reread it until you do.
>
> > > Since no one has sensed god through any of their 5 senses, theists don't have
>
> > > any way to sense god other than through their emotions, which is an illusion.
>
> > You have not thought this thru. *All* sense based mental constructs are
>
> > illusions. Red, for example, is a mental construct of a wavelength of
>
> > light. The people around you are much more complex constructs from very
>
> > limited information. Inferring a conscious God from creation is no
>
> > different in form from inferring consciousness in your mother.
>
> No, you have sensory information about your mothers consciousness.
Really? What sense does that in humans? Now Vulcans, they can mind-
> No, I didn't and I don't need to. YOU need to bring an argument from whatever source you find and PRESENT IT. You have not done this. I'm not going to go on a hunt for your information.
>
> > This is just sad.
>
> Don't be sad, be informative.
>
> > > One more thing. I have not said that my original post is the reason WHY
>
> > > theists believe in god, only that they think the emotional feeling they have
>
> > > about god is not a valid substitute for knowing he exists.
>
> > I cannot figure out if the above means anything.
>
> Then reread it until you do.
>
> > > Since no one has sensed god through any of their 5 senses, theists don't have
>
> > > any way to sense god other than through their emotions, which is an illusion.
>
> > You have not thought this thru. *All* sense based mental constructs are
>
> > illusions. Red, for example, is a mental construct of a wavelength of
>
> > light. The people around you are much more complex constructs from very
>
> > limited information. Inferring a conscious God from creation is no
>
> > different in form from inferring consciousness in your mother.
>
> No, you have sensory information about your mothers consciousness.
melt, and get direct sensory information about another person's
consciousness. None of the five senses you mentioned elsewhere does
this, nor any of the other 12+ senses we actually have. That was the
point behind Thomas Nagel's famous "What is it like to be a bat" paper
- we use a complex "theory of mind" where we use a very poor inductive
base of one (our own self-awareness) for a meta-cognitive inference
that attributes consciousness to other entities that look sufficiently
like us. Far from simple sensory information, it requires complex
reasoning skills in the absence of sensory information. Which is why
we use tests such as the "smarties test" (aka reality appearance
test); false belief tasks or false photograph tasks to find out if a
person or an animal has that ability. People with autism can lack it
even if their sense perception is perfectly OK (see e.g. Leslie, A. M.
(1991). Theory of mind impairment in autism. In A. Whiten (Ed.),
Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of
everyday mindreading (pp. 63-77) as is of course the sense perception
of animals who fail any of these tasks. a good overview of the various
theories on how we reason about (as opposed to perceive) other
people's consciousness is in Carruthers and Smith " Theories of
theories of mind." Cambridge: CUP 1998.
>You do NOT have sensory information on god. Yes, you are correct about minds constructs, however this is not entirely acurate of our ability to understand reality with regard to illusions. We use our senses to map our >environment in the brain. What we sense are not "illusions" in the same way we classify what an illusion is. Our senses tell us what's real based upon what we can test. What is not real is what our senses percieve as >real, but prove to be otherwise. Otherwise nothing would be "real" and science wouldn't work at all. If I pick up a rock, I can see it, smell it, taste it if I put my tongue of it, feel it's weight when I hold it, and hear the >sound it makes when it makes contact with your head if I threw it at you, then based on my senses and yours, the rock is real and not an illusion. By contrast, if the rock was foam and I hit you in the head with it, you'd >then percieve the rock to be foam, the illusion of it being something
>
> other than what you thought it to be. My point in this analogy is that emotions that make the body "feel" them are not always understood by the person having them. When people watch a scary movie, they experience fear even though they're in no real danger. This is Association. Just like you would associate the rock with pain when I throw it at you. Foam or not. Well, before it hits you anyway.
>
> Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
>
anger. Two emotions, which in this case correctly tell you you were
hit by a rock. So the _mere_ fact that sense perception and emotions
are linked does not tell you anything about the external reality of
what you perceive. Evolutionary speaking, emotional responses are
(fora given value) cross cultural precisely because they are truth
tracking of the environment, that is if you feel pain, then it is
(more often than not) because there is something external that causes
the pain. Not always (phantom pain e.g.) but often enough
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 9, 2012, 10:28:15 AM11/9/12
to
> What you are telling me is to research the literature until I finally
>
> convince myself that you are right. This is exactly the message I
>
> regularly receive from fundamentalist Christians.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant read it until you UNDERSTAND it because you said you didn't.
>
> convince myself that you are right. This is exactly the message I
>
> regularly receive from fundamentalist Christians.
> Not much point in our having a discussion if you're not willing to look
>
> at a short summary of recent research methods/thinking. Nor are you
>
> willing to provide a single explicit reference in support of your own
>
> argument.
>
>
> > YOU need to bring an argument from whatever
>
> > source you find and PRESENT IT.
>
>
>
> What?! You are the one who is *claiming* that you understand the
>
> motives for other people's beliefs better than they understand it
>
> themselves. Since you are the one making the claim, it is for you to
>
> present supporting evidence. Vague references to an obsolete mental
>
> model are not evidence.
>
I have said this before. I made no such claim. Again, I didn't say WHY people believe in god, I only made references to emotions and the association of feeling gods presence. I've given a few examples of association, told you how it stems from the subconscious, and that the subconscious can be manipulated by others that understand behavioral laws. To say that the subconscious is vague, is to say you don't understand levels of consciousness. Just because I'm not willing to do your homework for you, doesn't mean these terms are meaningless. I'm done explaining this to you and I don't care if you don't understand.
>
> > YOU need to bring an argument from whatever
>
> > source you find and PRESENT IT.
>
>
>
> What?! You are the one who is *claiming* that you understand the
>
> motives for other people's beliefs better than they understand it
>
> themselves. Since you are the one making the claim, it is for you to
>
> present supporting evidence. Vague references to an obsolete mental
>
> model are not evidence.
>
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 9, 2012, 11:40:17 AM11/9/12
to
> > � No, you have sensory information about your mothers consciousness.
You're correct about how we can test sensory perception in people and animals and that's how we know that information. My point is that you need your senses to collect the data.
> >You do NOT have sensory information on god. Yes, you are correct about minds constructs, however this is not entirely acurate of our ability to understand reality with regard to illusions. We use our senses to map our >environment in the brain. What we sense are not "illusions" in the same way we classify what an illusion is. Our senses tell us what's real based upon what we can test. What is not real is what our senses percieve as >real, but prove to be otherwise. Otherwise nothing would be "real" and science wouldn't work at all. If I pick up a rock, I can see it, smell it, taste it if I put my tongue of it, feel it's weight when I hold it, and hear the >sound it makes when it makes contact with your head if I threw it at you, then based on my senses and yours, the rock is real and not an illusion. By contrast, if the rock was foam and I hit you in the head with it, you'd >then percieve the rock to be foam, the illusion of it being something
>
> >
>
> > other than what you thought it to be. My point in this analogy is that emotions that make the body "feel" them are not always understood by the person having them. When people watch a scary movie, they experience fear even though they're in no real danger. This is Association. Just like you would associate the rock with pain when I throw it at you. Foam or not. Well, before it hits you anyway.
>
> >
>
> > Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Quite. and in that case, you would feel pain, possibly followed by
>
> anger. Two emotions, which in this case correctly tell you you were
>
> hit by a rock. So the _mere_ fact that sense perception and emotions
>
> are linked does not tell you anything about the external reality of
>
> what you perceive.
You got this part right and it confirms that you do agree about association. However, what I disagree about your statement is that you cannot percieve reality. You can percieve. It's just that in some cases we're wrong. For the use of the information in situations that matter to us, we investigate. To understand that you were hit by a real rock, instead of a foam one, doesn't take a whole lot of investigation.
>
>
>
> Really? What sense does that in humans? Now Vulcans, they can mind-
>
> melt, and get direct sensory information about another person's
>
> consciousness. None of the five senses you mentioned elsewhere does
>
> this, nor any of the other 12+ senses we actually have. That was the
>
> point behind Thomas Nagel's famous "What is it like to be a bat" paper
>
> - we use a complex "theory of mind" where we use a very poor inductive
>
> base of one (our own self-awareness) for a meta-cognitive inference
>
> that attributes consciousness to other entities that look sufficiently
>
> like us. Far from simple sensory information, it requires complex
>
> reasoning skills in the absence of sensory information. Which is why
>
> we use tests such as the "smarties test" (aka reality appearance
>
> test); false belief tasks or false photograph tasks to find out if a
>
> person or an animal has that ability. People with autism can lack it
>
> even if their sense perception is perfectly OK (see e.g. Leslie, A. M.
>
> (1991). Theory of mind impairment in autism. In A. Whiten (Ed.),
>
> Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of
>
> everyday mindreading (pp. 63-77) as is of course the sense perception
>
> of animals who fail any of these tasks. a good overview of the various
>
> theories on how we reason about (as opposed to perceive) other
>
> people's consciousness is in Carruthers and Smith " Theories of
>
> theories of mind." Cambridge: CUP 1998.
Now I know you like to argue. You seem to understand the semantics of my statements mostly, but like to point out inefficiencies in my writing. You're kind of a troll. I'll clarify here, just for you. You're correct about needing to use reasoning skills to deduce consciousness in your mother, but in order to do that, you need to use your senses to collect data on your mother. Since you can use your senses to detect your mother, you can use reason, based off information you have gathered about humans having consciousness. You can see her and how she behaves. You can detect her with your other senses as well when she is in front of you. Now try that with god... You can't. None of your senses can detect him, therefore you have no data on him, just like you have no data on an invisible friend. You can imagine the existence of god and can reason his existence in the same way you can reason the existence of a person I describe to you that you haven't met. That doesn't mean the person I describe actually exists!
>
>
> Really? What sense does that in humans? Now Vulcans, they can mind-
>
> melt, and get direct sensory information about another person's
>
> consciousness. None of the five senses you mentioned elsewhere does
>
> this, nor any of the other 12+ senses we actually have. That was the
>
> point behind Thomas Nagel's famous "What is it like to be a bat" paper
>
> - we use a complex "theory of mind" where we use a very poor inductive
>
> base of one (our own self-awareness) for a meta-cognitive inference
>
> that attributes consciousness to other entities that look sufficiently
>
> like us. Far from simple sensory information, it requires complex
>
> reasoning skills in the absence of sensory information. Which is why
>
> we use tests such as the "smarties test" (aka reality appearance
>
> test); false belief tasks or false photograph tasks to find out if a
>
> person or an animal has that ability. People with autism can lack it
>
> even if their sense perception is perfectly OK (see e.g. Leslie, A. M.
>
> (1991). Theory of mind impairment in autism. In A. Whiten (Ed.),
>
> Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of
>
> everyday mindreading (pp. 63-77) as is of course the sense perception
>
> of animals who fail any of these tasks. a good overview of the various
>
> theories on how we reason about (as opposed to perceive) other
>
> people's consciousness is in Carruthers and Smith " Theories of
>
> theories of mind." Cambridge: CUP 1998.
You're correct about how we can test sensory perception in people and animals and that's how we know that information. My point is that you need your senses to collect the data.
> >You do NOT have sensory information on god. Yes, you are correct about minds constructs, however this is not entirely acurate of our ability to understand reality with regard to illusions. We use our senses to map our >environment in the brain. What we sense are not "illusions" in the same way we classify what an illusion is. Our senses tell us what's real based upon what we can test. What is not real is what our senses percieve as >real, but prove to be otherwise. Otherwise nothing would be "real" and science wouldn't work at all. If I pick up a rock, I can see it, smell it, taste it if I put my tongue of it, feel it's weight when I hold it, and hear the >sound it makes when it makes contact with your head if I threw it at you, then based on my senses and yours, the rock is real and not an illusion. By contrast, if the rock was foam and I hit you in the head with it, you'd >then percieve the rock to be foam, the illusion of it being something
>
> >
>
> > other than what you thought it to be. My point in this analogy is that emotions that make the body "feel" them are not always understood by the person having them. When people watch a scary movie, they experience fear even though they're in no real danger. This is Association. Just like you would associate the rock with pain when I throw it at you. Foam or not. Well, before it hits you anyway.
>
> >
>
> > Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Quite. and in that case, you would feel pain, possibly followed by
>
> anger. Two emotions, which in this case correctly tell you you were
>
> hit by a rock. So the _mere_ fact that sense perception and emotions
>
> are linked does not tell you anything about the external reality of
>
> what you perceive.
Burkhard
Nov 9, 2012, 12:16:04 PM11/9/12
to
On 9 Nov, 16:42, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> � Now I know you like to argue. You seem to understand the semantics of my statements mostly, but like to point out inefficiencies in my writing.
Your statement, as formulated, was wrong. Since I can't read minds, I
have no idea if it was wrong because of your writing, or because of
your ignorance of cognition. Correcting it either way seems to be the
necessary thing to do
>You're kind of a troll. I'll clarify here, just for you. You're correct about >needing to use reasoning skills to deduce consciousness in your mother, but in order to do that, you need to use your senses to collect data on >your mother. Since you can use your senses to detect your mother, you >can use reason, based off information you have gathered about humans having consciousness. You can see her and how she behaves. You >can detect her with your other senses as well when she is in front of you. >Now try that with god... You can't.
Well, that is either trite or question begging. Theists will either
argue that sure, they did not claim otherwise, deities are
categorically different from other things. (and everyone of us accepts
certain things that can't be observed by senses - numbers e.g. or
"thoughts") Or they will claim that of course, you can observe god the
same way you observe your mother. You can see that tree, can't you? An
a form of "reasoning" then allows us to attribute consciousness to the
tree, and suddenly there are Dryads in your ontology. That is what you
find in the scientific literature on the evolution of religion, it is
the very same process that enabled us to attribute consciousness to
animate objects that also underpins the emergence of religion.
Now you may claim that this attribution of intent to trees (or rocks,
or the entire planet) is wrong - as maybe, but it has nothing to do
with the issue of sense perception. The senses involved are the same
in both cases.
> None of your senses can detect him, therefore you have no data on him, just like you have no data on an >invisible friend. You can imagine the existence of god and can reason his >existence in the same way you >can reason the existence of a person I describe to you that you haven't met. That doesn't mean the person I >describe actually exists!
>
> You're correct about how we can test sensory perception in people and animals and that's how we know that information. My point is that you need your senses to collect the data.
>
<snip>
>
> > > Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
>
> > Quite. and in that case, you would feel pain, possibly followed by
>
> > anger. Two emotions, which in this case correctly tell you you were
>
> > hit by a rock. So the _mere_ fact that sense perception and emotions
>
> > are linked does not tell you anything about the external reality of
>
> > what you perceive.
>
> � You got this part right and it confirms that you do agree about association.
No it doesn't. I was not speaking about associations. You have used
the term on occasions, but did not say enough for me to understand if
you mean it in the technical sense (and if so, which technical sense
as different cog sci and psychology schools use it quite differently),
or what role it is supposed to play in your argument. At this point,
nobody here seems to have the foggiest idea what you are actually
arguing, and hence it is rather difficult to know if one agrees with
you or not.
>However, what I disagree about your statement is that you cannot perceive reality.
And where did I say that?
> You can percieve. It's just that in some cases we're wrong. For the use of the information in situations that matter to us, we investigate. To understand that you were hit by a real rock, instead of a foam one, doesn't >take a whole lot of investigation.
So? Nothing I wrote disagrees with that. My point was that it is the
emotion we feel when being hit by a rock that confirms it is a rock.
your original claim, as written (and that may be very different from
what you mean) was to claim that the fact that theists have an
emotional attachment to the concept of god implies that their claim to
have a perception of god is wrong. The pain example shows that this is
simply an invalid inference. Emotional perceptions are not
inconsistent with the correctness of what is perceived.
>
>
> � Now I know you like to argue. You seem to understand the semantics of my statements mostly, but like to point out inefficiencies in my writing.
Your statement, as formulated, was wrong. Since I can't read minds, I
have no idea if it was wrong because of your writing, or because of
your ignorance of cognition. Correcting it either way seems to be the
necessary thing to do
>You're kind of a troll. I'll clarify here, just for you. You're correct about >needing to use reasoning skills to deduce consciousness in your mother, but in order to do that, you need to use your senses to collect data on >your mother. Since you can use your senses to detect your mother, you >can use reason, based off information you have gathered about humans having consciousness. You can see her and how she behaves. You >can detect her with your other senses as well when she is in front of you. >Now try that with god... You can't.
argue that sure, they did not claim otherwise, deities are
categorically different from other things. (and everyone of us accepts
certain things that can't be observed by senses - numbers e.g. or
"thoughts") Or they will claim that of course, you can observe god the
same way you observe your mother. You can see that tree, can't you? An
a form of "reasoning" then allows us to attribute consciousness to the
tree, and suddenly there are Dryads in your ontology. That is what you
find in the scientific literature on the evolution of religion, it is
the very same process that enabled us to attribute consciousness to
animate objects that also underpins the emergence of religion.
Now you may claim that this attribution of intent to trees (or rocks,
or the entire planet) is wrong - as maybe, but it has nothing to do
with the issue of sense perception. The senses involved are the same
in both cases.
> None of your senses can detect him, therefore you have no data on him, just like you have no data on an >invisible friend. You can imagine the existence of god and can reason his >existence in the same way you >can reason the existence of a person I describe to you that you haven't met. That doesn't mean the person I >describe actually exists!
>
> You're correct about how we can test sensory perception in people and animals and that's how we know that information. My point is that you need your senses to collect the data.
>
>
> > > Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
>
> > Quite. and in that case, you would feel pain, possibly followed by
>
> > anger. Two emotions, which in this case correctly tell you you were
>
> > hit by a rock. So the _mere_ fact that sense perception and emotions
>
> > are linked does not tell you anything about the external reality of
>
> > what you perceive.
>
> � You got this part right and it confirms that you do agree about association.
the term on occasions, but did not say enough for me to understand if
you mean it in the technical sense (and if so, which technical sense
as different cog sci and psychology schools use it quite differently),
or what role it is supposed to play in your argument. At this point,
nobody here seems to have the foggiest idea what you are actually
arguing, and hence it is rather difficult to know if one agrees with
you or not.
>However, what I disagree about your statement is that you cannot perceive reality.
And where did I say that?
> You can percieve. It's just that in some cases we're wrong. For the use of the information in situations that matter to us, we investigate. To understand that you were hit by a real rock, instead of a foam one, doesn't >take a whole lot of investigation.
emotion we feel when being hit by a rock that confirms it is a rock.
your original claim, as written (and that may be very different from
what you mean) was to claim that the fact that theists have an
emotional attachment to the concept of god implies that their claim to
have a perception of god is wrong. The pain example shows that this is
simply an invalid inference. Emotional perceptions are not
inconsistent with the correctness of what is perceived.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 9, 2012, 3:26:23 PM11/9/12
to
On Friday, November 9, 2012 9:17:44 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> On 9 Nov, 16:42, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now I know you like to argue. You seem to understand the semantics of my statements mostly, but like to point out inefficiencies in my writing.
>
>
>
> Your statement, as formulated, was wrong. Since I can't read minds, I
>
> have no idea if it was wrong because of your writing, or because of
>
> your ignorance of cognition. Correcting it either way seems to be the
>
> necessary thing to do
>
>
>
> >You're kind of a troll. I'll clarify here, just for you. You're correct about >needing to use reasoning skills to deduce consciousness in your mother, but in order to do that, you need to use your senses to collect data on >your mother. Since you can use your senses to detect your mother, you >can use reason, based off information you have gathered about humans having consciousness. You can see her and how she behaves. You >can detect her with your other senses as well when she is in front of you. >Now try that with god... You can't.
>
>
>
> Well, that is either trite or question begging. Theists will either
>
> argue that sure, they did not claim otherwise, deities are
>
> categorically different from other things. (and everyone of us accepts
>
> certain things that can't be observed by senses - numbers e.g. or
>
> "thoughts") Or they will claim that of course, you can observe god the
>
> same way you observe your mother. You can see that tree, can't you? An
>
> a form of "reasoning" then allows us to attribute consciousness to the
>
> tree, and suddenly there are Dryads in your ontology. That is what you
>
> find in the scientific literature on the evolution of religion, it is
>
> the very same process that enabled us to attribute consciousness to
>
> animate objects that also underpins the emergence of religion.
The level of reasoning in any given person is attributed to education, (whether what is learned is true or not), and imagination in that person.
> On 9 Nov, 16:42, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now I know you like to argue. You seem to understand the semantics of my statements mostly, but like to point out inefficiencies in my writing.
>
>
>
> Your statement, as formulated, was wrong. Since I can't read minds, I
>
> have no idea if it was wrong because of your writing, or because of
>
> your ignorance of cognition. Correcting it either way seems to be the
>
> necessary thing to do
>
>
>
> >You're kind of a troll. I'll clarify here, just for you. You're correct about >needing to use reasoning skills to deduce consciousness in your mother, but in order to do that, you need to use your senses to collect data on >your mother. Since you can use your senses to detect your mother, you >can use reason, based off information you have gathered about humans having consciousness. You can see her and how she behaves. You >can detect her with your other senses as well when she is in front of you. >Now try that with god... You can't.
>
>
>
> Well, that is either trite or question begging. Theists will either
>
> argue that sure, they did not claim otherwise, deities are
>
> categorically different from other things. (and everyone of us accepts
>
> certain things that can't be observed by senses - numbers e.g. or
>
> "thoughts") Or they will claim that of course, you can observe god the
>
> same way you observe your mother. You can see that tree, can't you? An
>
> a form of "reasoning" then allows us to attribute consciousness to the
>
> tree, and suddenly there are Dryads in your ontology. That is what you
>
> find in the scientific literature on the evolution of religion, it is
>
> the very same process that enabled us to attribute consciousness to
>
> animate objects that also underpins the emergence of religion.
In order to say what is reasonable, the people having the conversation has to agree on facts that the subject is about.
>
> Now you may claim that this attribution of intent to trees (or rocks,
>
> or the entire planet) is wrong - as maybe, but it has nothing to do
>
> with the issue of sense perception. The senses involved are the same
>
> in both cases.
>
>
>
>
> > None of your senses can detect him, therefore you have no data on him, just like you have no data on an >invisible friend. You can imagine the existence of god and can reason his >existence in the same way you >can reason the existence of a person I describe to you that you haven't met. That doesn't mean the person I >describe actually exists!
>
> >
>
> > You're correct about how we can test sensory perception in people and animals and that's how we know that information. My point is that you need your senses to collect the data.
>
> >
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
>
> >
>
> > > Quite. and in that case, you would feel pain, possibly followed by
>
> >
>
> > > anger. Two emotions, which in this case correctly tell you you were
>
> >
>
> > > hit by a rock. So the _mere_ fact that sense perception and emotions
>
> >
>
> > > are linked does not tell you anything about the external reality of
>
> >
>
> > > what you perceive.
>
> >
>
> > You got this part right and it confirms that you do agree about association.
>
>
>
> No it doesn't. I was not speaking about associations. You have used
>
> the term on occasions, but did not say enough for me to understand if
>
> you mean it in the technical sense (and if so, which technical sense
>
> as different cog sci and psychology schools use it quite differently),
>
> or what role it is supposed to play in your argument. At this point,
>
> nobody here seems to have the foggiest idea what you are actually
>
> arguing, and hence it is rather difficult to know if one agrees with
>
> you or not.
>
Ok. When I used the term Association, I'm writing about one of the laws of behavior that the subconscious part of the brain follows. Example: If you hear a dinner bell every time before you eat dinner, when it's rung, you'll think that it's time to eat whether there's food or not. You've associated the ringing of the bell as a summons to eat.
>
>
> > None of your senses can detect him, therefore you have no data on him, just like you have no data on an >invisible friend. You can imagine the existence of god and can reason his >existence in the same way you >can reason the existence of a person I describe to you that you haven't met. That doesn't mean the person I >describe actually exists!
>
> >
>
> > You're correct about how we can test sensory perception in people and animals and that's how we know that information. My point is that you need your senses to collect the data.
>
> >
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > > Another example: I have a pile of 10 rocks. 9 of which are foam. I hit you in the head, one at a time as you laugh in good humor as they bounce harmlessly of your head. You smile and hold still as I throw the 10th rock. The reason you hold still is because you've Associated the rocks as unharmful. Until that last rock hits you and your perception of the activity changes rather sourly.
>
> >
>
> > > Quite. and in that case, you would feel pain, possibly followed by
>
> >
>
> > > anger. Two emotions, which in this case correctly tell you you were
>
> >
>
> > > hit by a rock. So the _mere_ fact that sense perception and emotions
>
> >
>
> > > are linked does not tell you anything about the external reality of
>
> >
>
> > > what you perceive.
>
> >
>
> > You got this part right and it confirms that you do agree about association.
>
>
>
> No it doesn't. I was not speaking about associations. You have used
>
> the term on occasions, but did not say enough for me to understand if
>
> you mean it in the technical sense (and if so, which technical sense
>
> as different cog sci and psychology schools use it quite differently),
>
> or what role it is supposed to play in your argument. At this point,
>
> nobody here seems to have the foggiest idea what you are actually
>
> arguing, and hence it is rather difficult to know if one agrees with
>
> you or not.
>
>
> >However, what I disagree about your statement is that you cannot perceive reality.
>
>
>
> And where did I say that?
You are likely referring to insight. Let me know if this is the case.
>
>
> > You can percieve. It's just that in some cases we're wrong. For the use of the information in situations that matter to us, we investigate. To understand that you were hit by a real rock, instead of a foam one, doesn't >take a whole lot of investigation.
>
>
>
> So? Nothing I wrote disagrees with that. My point was that it is the
>
> emotion we feel when being hit by a rock that confirms it is a rock.
>
> your original claim, as written (and that may be very different from
>
> what you mean) was to claim that the fact that theists have an
>
> emotional attachment to the concept of god implies that their claim to
>
> have a perception of god is wrong. The pain example shows that this is
>
> simply an invalid inference. Emotional perceptions are not
>
> inconsistent with the correctness of what is perceived.
Closing clarification. The association of a theists emotional response to the words of a religious leader can be percieved as gods presence. Example: If you've ever gone to church for any given amount of time, you would've likely heard this kind of speech, "The spirit of the Lord is with us! I feel his presence in me! Do you feel the spirit of the lord!! If not, just open your heart to JESUS and let him in! That's right!! Open your heart to him! He loves you! Halleighlieuya!!! Praise God! Halleighlieghlieuya, Amen!" This being backed up by church music and people in the audience can be impactful. One could say that they have "felt" the spirit of the Lord and he is real. If one can reason that god does exist, that person can associate that "feeling" as god entering your body and filling you with his love! This is manipulation.
Mike Duffy
Nov 9, 2012, 9:11:09 PM11/9/12
to
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
news:4bf6cad1-3ceb-4fb4...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
>
> Ah, but they are limits to what we can (within certain constraints)
> prove, not what we can know.
Well, what we can know "for sure" is what we can prove.
> Indeed, the whole point of the theorems is that we know
> more than we can prove
I have a friend with a bible full of stuff he knows,
and which I know he cannot prove.
> (again, for a certain very constraint notion of proof)
True. I didn't see any point in exceeding my understanding.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
news:4bf6cad1-3ceb-4fb4...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
>
> Ah, but they are limits to what we can (within certain constraints)
> prove, not what we can know.
> Indeed, the whole point of the theorems is that we know
> more than we can prove
and which I know he cannot prove.
> (again, for a certain very constraint notion of proof)
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Bill
Nov 9, 2012, 10:06:59 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 10, 9:12�am, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:
"for sure."
wrote:
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote innews:4bf6cad1-3ceb-4fb4...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > Ah, but they are limits to what we can (within certain constraints)
> > prove, not what we can know.
.
>
> Well, what we can know "for sure" is what we can prove.
By that criterion, all of the useful stuff we know, we do not know
>
>
>
> > Ah, but they are limits to what we can (within certain constraints)
> > prove, not what we can know.
.
>
> Well, what we can know "for sure" is what we can prove.
"for sure."
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 9, 2012, 10:36:26 PM11/9/12
to
> > > Ah, but they are limits to what we can (within certain constraints)
>
> > > prove, not what we can know.
>
> .
>
> >
>
> > Well, what we can know "for sure" is what we can prove.
>
>
>
> By that criterion, all of the useful stuff we know, we do not know
>
> "for sure."
>
>
>
> >
>
> > > Indeed, the whole point of the theorems is that we know
>
> > > more than we can prove
>
> >
>
> > I have a friend with a bible full of stuff he knows,
>
> > and which I know he cannot prove.
>
> >
>
> > > (again, for a certain very constraint notion of proof)
>
> >
>
> > True. I didn't see any point in exceeding my understanding.
>
> >
>
Burkhard
Nov 10, 2012, 4:42:53 AM11/10/12
to
On 10 Nov, 02:12, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:
know nothing "for sure" and hence Goedel's theorem trivially does not
apply. And for the same reason, in mathematics it becomes trivially
false.
Just think about it. Goedel's theorem says in a nutshell that no
consistent axiomatisation of mathematics is also complete. What does
that mean? Essentially, that there will be a true mathematical
statement for any axiomatisation that can't be proven within that
axiomatisation. If you equate knowledge with proof, how can we know
that the mathematical statement under consideration is true, if it is
unprovable? It is the whole point of his theorem that "know to be
true" and "provable" diverge.
(I also think your statement is false in the empirical field - I know
for sure, as sure as I can know anything, that I have a headache now.
Can I prove it? Hardly even today with fmri, and most certainly not in
the past. Yet people 100 years ago knew just as surely as I do when
they had a headache)
>
> > Indeed, the whole point of the theorems is that we know
> > more than we can prove
>
> I have a friend with a bible full of stuff he knows,
> and which I know he cannot prove.
As maybe. But assuming you take this as an argument against
distinguishing proof and knowledge ( and you don't simply agree with
your friend) then that would just show that sometimes,unwarranted
truth claims are made in the absence of proof. But that does not mean
that always, proof and knowledge must be the same, or that we can't
have knowledge of truth without proof.
When mathematicians use Goedel's theorem that implies that we can know
that certain mathematical statements are true even if we can't prove
them (in the restricted sense of proof he deals with, that is a
decidable and constructive proof in a finite axiomatic system , in
finite steps), they don't mean that we know them through divine
revelation. We know them to be true through a meta-semantic
reflection. Take system T and find its Goedel sentence. That sentence
is true but unprovable. Name the sentence G. Add G to T to derive T1.
Prove T1 is consistent (G did not cause any damage). Find the Goedel
sentence G1 of T1 and name it G2. Add the sentence and repeat.
At this point, human mathematicians realise that you can get
arbitrarily stronger systems that prove more and more of mathematics -
nothing ever can go wrong. That' how we know these Goedel sentences
are indeed true, even though we can't prove them within their
respective axiomatic systems.
wrote:
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote innews:4bf6cad1-3ceb-4fb4...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > Ah, but they are limits to what we can (within certain constraints)
> > prove, not what we can know.
>
> Well, what we can know "for sure" is what we can prove.
Ok, if this were true, that means that in the empirical sciences, we
>
>
>
> > Ah, but they are limits to what we can (within certain constraints)
> > prove, not what we can know.
>
> Well, what we can know "for sure" is what we can prove.
know nothing "for sure" and hence Goedel's theorem trivially does not
apply. And for the same reason, in mathematics it becomes trivially
false.
Just think about it. Goedel's theorem says in a nutshell that no
consistent axiomatisation of mathematics is also complete. What does
that mean? Essentially, that there will be a true mathematical
statement for any axiomatisation that can't be proven within that
axiomatisation. If you equate knowledge with proof, how can we know
that the mathematical statement under consideration is true, if it is
unprovable? It is the whole point of his theorem that "know to be
true" and "provable" diverge.
(I also think your statement is false in the empirical field - I know
for sure, as sure as I can know anything, that I have a headache now.
Can I prove it? Hardly even today with fmri, and most certainly not in
the past. Yet people 100 years ago knew just as surely as I do when
they had a headache)
>
> > Indeed, the whole point of the theorems is that we know
> > more than we can prove
>
> I have a friend with a bible full of stuff he knows,
> and which I know he cannot prove.
distinguishing proof and knowledge ( and you don't simply agree with
your friend) then that would just show that sometimes,unwarranted
truth claims are made in the absence of proof. But that does not mean
that always, proof and knowledge must be the same, or that we can't
have knowledge of truth without proof.
When mathematicians use Goedel's theorem that implies that we can know
that certain mathematical statements are true even if we can't prove
them (in the restricted sense of proof he deals with, that is a
decidable and constructive proof in a finite axiomatic system , in
finite steps), they don't mean that we know them through divine
revelation. We know them to be true through a meta-semantic
reflection. Take system T and find its Goedel sentence. That sentence
is true but unprovable. Name the sentence G. Add G to T to derive T1.
Prove T1 is consistent (G did not cause any damage). Find the Goedel
sentence G1 of T1 and name it G2. Add the sentence and repeat.
At this point, human mathematicians realise that you can get
arbitrarily stronger systems that prove more and more of mathematics -
nothing ever can go wrong. That' how we know these Goedel sentences
are indeed true, even though we can't prove them within their
respective axiomatic systems.
Ernest Major
Nov 10, 2012, 5:53:05 AM11/10/12
to
In message
<73f89fd8-d0d3-47b9...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
1) We know that there exist mathematical statements which are true but
not proveable.
2) There exist mathematical statements which we know are true but which
are not proveable.
The first clearly follows from Goedel's theorem. I don't see that the
second does.
--
alias Ernest Major
<73f89fd8-d0d3-47b9...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>When mathematicians use Goedel's theorem that implies that we can know
>that certain mathematical statements are true even if we can't prove
>them (in the restricted sense of proof he deals with, that is a
>decidable and constructive proof in a finite axiomatic system , in
>finite steps), they don't mean that we know them through divine
>revelation.
I can see two different interpretations of what you wrote.
>that certain mathematical statements are true even if we can't prove
>them (in the restricted sense of proof he deals with, that is a
>decidable and constructive proof in a finite axiomatic system , in
>finite steps), they don't mean that we know them through divine
>revelation.
1) We know that there exist mathematical statements which are true but
not proveable.
2) There exist mathematical statements which we know are true but which
are not proveable.
The first clearly follows from Goedel's theorem. I don't see that the
second does.
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
Nov 10, 2012, 7:09:23 AM11/10/12
to
On 10 Nov, 10:57, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <73f89fd8-d0d3-47b9-b5e1-db154a6ea...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> writes
I'd say the Goedel sentence for each axiomatic system matches your
description of 2 - known to be true but not provable in that system
> In message
> <73f89fd8-d0d3-47b9-b5e1-db154a6ea...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> writes
description of 2 - known to be true but not provable in that system
Glenn
Nov 10, 2012, 7:19:36 AM11/10/12
to
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:6de6d02a-6b59-4411...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Bill
Nov 10, 2012, 7:58:33 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 7:27 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:6de6d02a-6b59-4411...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Yes, at least for the purposes of Godel's theorem. You can read a very
clear summary of the proof and the theorem in the short book, "Godel's
Proof," by Nagel.
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:6de6d02a-6b59-4411...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
clear summary of the proof and the theorem in the short book, "Godel's
Proof," by Nagel.
eridanus
Nov 10, 2012, 8:15:07 AM11/10/12
to
The problem is in "the wars of truths" Each person pertains to a
particular group or church. then, each church has is own kind of truths.
Then, if I pertain to the church of science, and you pertain to the an
adventist church, we can share some common truths but not all.
For I have have some truths that you consider errors, and I consider
some of your truth as errors.
But on the whole it exists some intersections between my truths any your
truths; some sort of truths like "it is raining", "the train has arrived",
"this is a roll of bread" and "this is a glass of beer".
Eridanus
Glenn
Nov 10, 2012, 8:27:00 AM11/10/12
to
"Bill" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c0d066f4-a636-4b4e...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
Nick Keighley
Nov 11, 2012, 8:01:14 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 4, 3:52�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
>
> > maybe we smell god
>
> What if God were defined as �"the sum total of the creative
> properties of the universe."?
what if red were defined as blue?
I'm not convinced the universe has any "creative powers"
> Atheists keep insisting on proof of God,
no.This atheist would settle for scintilla of evidence
> when God is a term for that which is indefinable,
giggle
> but which we know exists.
no.
> For instance, a market force, tell
> me if you believe in them and their goodness.
> Then tell me exactly what they are.
a short hand for emergent econmic behaviour
> � � � "To tell the beauty would decrease,
> � � � To state the Spell demean,
> � � � There is a syllableless sea
> � � � Of which it is the sign.
>
> � � � My will endeavours for its word
> � � � And fails, but entertains
> � � � A rapture as of legacies-
> � � � Of introspective mines."
>
> � � By E Dickinson
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47292080-450d-4f18...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 4, 2:48 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> so maybe we do feel God before or before we ever see him/her/both
>
> > maybe we smell god
>
> What if God were defined as �"the sum total of the creative
> properties of the universe."?
what if red were defined as blue?
I'm not convinced the universe has any "creative powers"
> Atheists keep insisting on proof of God,
no.This atheist would settle for scintilla of evidence
> when God is a term for that which is indefinable,
giggle
> but which we know exists.
no.
> For instance, a market force, tell
> me if you believe in them and their goodness.
> Then tell me exactly what they are.
a short hand for emergent econmic behaviour
> � � � "To tell the beauty would decrease,
> � � � To state the Spell demean,
> � � � There is a syllableless sea
> � � � Of which it is the sign.
>
> � � � My will endeavours for its word
> � � � And fails, but entertains
> � � � A rapture as of legacies-
> � � � Of introspective mines."
>
> � � By E Dickinson
Nick Keighley
Nov 11, 2012, 8:39:53 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 6, 2:27 am, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no idea where **you're** coming from when you tell me that my structure is flawed.
> I have no idea where **you're** coming from when you tell me that my structure is flawed.
Walter Bushell
Nov 11, 2012, 9:14:41 AM11/11/12
to
In article
<20c7f0ee-df24-4910...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Not so far out as mainline Christianity goes.
I remember the hymn we used to sing
I come to the garden alone,
While the dew is still on the roses,
And the voice I hear falling on my ear,
The son of God discloses.
And he walks with me and he talks with me,
etcetera
And this was Methodism, pretty much a mainline Protestant religion.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
<20c7f0ee-df24-4910...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
I remember the hymn we used to sing
I come to the garden alone,
While the dew is still on the roses,
And the voice I hear falling on my ear,
The son of God discloses.
And he walks with me and he talks with me,
etcetera
And this was Methodism, pretty much a mainline Protestant religion.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 11, 2012, 10:57:32 AM11/11/12
to
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:42:38 AM UTC-8, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2:27�am, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have no idea where **you're** coming from when you tell me that my structure is flawed.
I don't think he was refering to my spelling and punctuation structure. But thanks for being my spell checker. The issue was what I said and how it was difficult to derive meaning from it. Writing is not my best skill.
> On Nov 6, 2:27�am, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have no idea where **you're** coming from when you tell me that my structure is flawed.
Burkhard
Nov 11, 2012, 4:32:24 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 9, 8:27 pm, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 9:17:44 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
<snip>
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 9:17:44 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > Well, that is either trite or question begging. Theists will either
>
> > argue that sure, they did not claim otherwise, deities are
>
> > categorically different from other things. (and everyone of us accepts
>
> > certain things that can't be observed by senses - numbers e.g. or
>
> > "thoughts") Or they will claim that of course, you can observe god the
>
> > same way you observe your mother. You can see that tree, can't you? An
>
> > a form of "reasoning" then allows us to attribute consciousness to the
>
> > tree, and suddenly there are Dryads in your ontology. That is what you
>
> > find in the scientific literature on the evolution of religion, it is
>
> > the very same process that enabled us to attribute consciousness to
>
> > animate objects that also underpins the emergence of religion.
>
>The level of reasoning in any given person is attributed to
education, (whether what is learned is true or not), and >imagination
in that person.
>In order to say what is reasonable, the people having the
conversation has to agree on facts that the subject is about.
No idea what you mean with this., or how it relates to what I wrote.
> > Well, that is either trite or question begging. Theists will either
>
> > argue that sure, they did not claim otherwise, deities are
>
> > categorically different from other things. (and everyone of us accepts
>
> > certain things that can't be observed by senses - numbers e.g. or
>
> > "thoughts") Or they will claim that of course, you can observe god the
>
> > same way you observe your mother. You can see that tree, can't you? An
>
> > a form of "reasoning" then allows us to attribute consciousness to the
>
> > tree, and suddenly there are Dryads in your ontology. That is what you
>
> > find in the scientific literature on the evolution of religion, it is
>
> > the very same process that enabled us to attribute consciousness to
>
> > animate objects that also underpins the emergence of religion.
>
>The level of reasoning in any given person is attributed to
education, (whether what is learned is true or not), and >imagination
in that person.
>In order to say what is reasonable, the people having the
conversation has to agree on facts that the subject is about.
>
> > Now you may claim that this attribution of intent to trees (or rocks,
>
> > or the entire planet) is wrong - as maybe, but it has nothing to do
>
> > with the issue of sense perception. The senses involved are the same
>
> > in both cases.
>
> I do apologize if my writing is not as clear as you like. I'll do my best to explain. What we observe in human behavior >tells us that there is a consciousness there. By observing the tree, we cannot infer a conscious being responsible for >it's existence.
observed but inferred. There are good reasons why after proper
investigation, we may decide trees are not conscious (and we may be
wrong of course) But you were arguing about sense perception only,
and on that level you;ll struggle to make your argument stick.
>This is a side point I made to a statement that doesn't have to do with my original post. It was just something I wrote >to someone elses statement.
>
> > > You got this part right and it confirms that you do agree about association.
>
> > No it doesn't. I was not speaking about associations. You have used
>
> > the term on occasions, but did not say enough for me to understand if
>
> > you mean it in the technical sense (and if so, which technical sense
>
> > as different cog sci and psychology schools use it quite differently),
>
> > or what role it is supposed to play in your argument. At this point,
>
> > nobody here seems to have the foggiest idea what you are actually
>
> > arguing, and hence it is rather difficult to know if one agrees with
>
> > you or not.
>
> Ok. When I used the term Association, I'm writing about one of the laws of behavior that the subconscious part of >the brain follows. Example: If you hear a dinner bell every time before you eat dinner, when it's rung, you'll think that >it's time to eat whether there's food or not. You've associated the ringing of the bell as a summons to eat.
All right, that is simple Pavlovian conditioning. I'd avoid the term
>
> > No it doesn't. I was not speaking about associations. You have used
>
> > the term on occasions, but did not say enough for me to understand if
>
> > you mean it in the technical sense (and if so, which technical sense
>
> > as different cog sci and psychology schools use it quite differently),
>
> > or what role it is supposed to play in your argument. At this point,
>
> > nobody here seems to have the foggiest idea what you are actually
>
> > arguing, and hence it is rather difficult to know if one agrees with
>
> > you or not.
>
> Ok. When I used the term Association, I'm writing about one of the laws of behavior that the subconscious part of >the brain follows. Example: If you hear a dinner bell every time before you eat dinner, when it's rung, you'll think that >it's time to eat whether there's food or not. You've associated the ringing of the bell as a summons to eat.
"laws of association", as they are normally associated with
Aristotle's theory (he identified four laws of association) which then
became central in the 19th century associationist psychology which is
considered obsolete. The idea of conditioning is not normally
expressed in the forms of laws, "model" would probably fit better.
Not sure though how you think you get any traction from that. In a
typical conditioning setting, you get a conditional stimulus
(Pavolov's bell) followed by an unconditioned stimulus (the food)
which normally triggers and unconditioned response whch eventually (in
the original theory) is replaced by the conditioned response -
salivating when the bell rings . Note that this model is seen today as
obsolete, if salvageable. (e.g. R A Rescorla, Hierarchical
associative relations in Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental
training. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 66-70)
Most importantly though, this is a model for _all_ learning, according
to this school in psychology, and typically requires an unconditioned
response as staring point. So in our setting, theists would associate
initially a response to the felt presence of God (say a strong desire
to confess) which later can be replaced by a conditioned response even
in the absence of God (say at Church) Somehow I doubt this is what you
try to argue.
>
>
> > >However, what I disagree about your statement is that you cannot perceive reality.
>
> > And where did I say that?
>
> Here, unless I misunerstood you: >So the _mere_ fact that sense perception and emotions are linked does not tell >you anything about the external reality of what you perceive.
Perception of reality is possible _even if_ the perception is
intertwined with emotional responses, and _even if_ it also triggers a
feeling of well being.
>
> You are likely referring to insight. Let me know if this is the case.
>
>
> > > You can percieve. It's just that in some cases we're wrong. For the use of the information in situations that matter to us, we investigate. To understand that you were hit by a real rock, instead of a foam one, doesn't >take a whole lot of investigation.
>
> > So? Nothing I wrote disagrees with that. My point was that it is the
>
> > emotion we feel when being hit by a rock that confirms it is a rock.
>
> > your original claim, as written (and that may be very different from
>
> > what you mean) was to claim that the fact that theists have an
>
> > emotional attachment to the concept of god implies that their claim to
>
> > have a perception of god is wrong. The pain example shows that this is
>
> > simply an invalid inference. Emotional perceptions are not
>
> > inconsistent with the correctness of what is perceived.
>
> Yes, I'll agree with this. The example I used is not in the same context. However, in either context, the law of association works the same way. The more I try to explain things, the more off track things can get.
>
> Closing clarification. The association of a theists emotional response to the words of a religious leader can be >percieved as gods presence. Example: If you've ever gone to church for any given amount of time, you would've likely >heard this kind of speech, "The spirit of the Lord is with us! I feel his presence in me! Do you feel the spirit of the lord!! >If not, just open your heart to JESUS and let him in! That's right!! Open your heart to him! He loves you! >Halleighlieuya!!! Praise God! Halleighlieghlieuya, Amen!" This being backed up by church music and people in the >audience can be impactful. One could say that they have "felt" the spirit of the Lord and he is real. If one can reason >that god does exist, that person can associate that "feeling" as god entering your body and filling you with his love! >This is manipulation.
which in turn are a small subgroup of theists - and not even they
would claim that this is a typical setting for the experience of God's
presence, so even if you coudl show that this manipulation happens, it
would not be sufficient to undermine generally the claim of theists
that they experience the presence of god.
Nor does the conditioning scheme of Pavlov fit your description above
- there you'd have to have also an unconditioned stimulus and
response. And since Pavlov describes a general theory of learning, it
would also be in principle be doubtful if you can on the back of it
construct an argument against heists - what you describe above e.g. is
from a "associationist" analysis indistinguishable from learning in
school that whenever we smell a certain smell after mixing two
elements, we smelled the wet sulfuric acid process.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 11, 2012, 10:49:29 PM11/11/12
to
@ Burkhard. I have posited information from what I've learned here and there. The only thing you've been doing is attempt to shoot holes in nearly all of my statements, but haven't given any information that is any better that replaces or overides mine. So, I have to ask, what is your purpose in posting your remarks here if you don't get to the heart of the subject? Why don't you tell all of us just what the case is when theists say, "I have felt god or seen him"? Because if you've got something better, I've yet to hear it. If not, then your purpose here is not to inform, but to tell other people that they're wrong. Which to me is useless, unless you have DO have something better... (Extends ear).
Mike Duffy
Nov 11, 2012, 11:02:35 PM11/11/12
to
Shawn Lorenzana <darthm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5ece2ed4-467e-4f21...@googlegroups.com:
> So, I have to ask, what is your purpose
> ... if you don't get to the heart of the subject
> ..."I have felt god"?
> ... Because if you've got something better, I've yet to hear it.
I cannot speak for the OP, but I have a pet theory explaining why people
"feel" the existance of God. Are either of you interested?
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
news:5ece2ed4-467e-4f21...@googlegroups.com:
> So, I have to ask, what is your purpose
> ..."I have felt god"?
> ... Because if you've got something better, I've yet to hear it.
I cannot speak for the OP, but I have a pet theory explaining why people
"feel" the existance of God. Are either of you interested?
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Bill
Nov 11, 2012, 11:13:37 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 12, 10:52�am, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Burkhard. I have posited information from what I've learned here and there. The only thing you've been doing is attempt to shoot holes in nearly all of my statements, but haven't given any information that is any better that replaces or overides mine. So, I have to ask, what is your purpose in posting your remarks here if you don't get to the heart of the subject? Why don't you tell all of us just what the case is when theists say, "I have felt god or seen him"? Because if you've got something better, I've yet to hear it. If not, then your purpose here is not to inform, but to tell other people that they're wrong. Which to me is useless, unless you have DO have something better... (Extends ear).
I'm still trying to figure out why YOU think theists "feel god." First
> @ Burkhard. I have posited information from what I've learned here and there. The only thing you've been doing is attempt to shoot holes in nearly all of my statements, but haven't given any information that is any better that replaces or overides mine. So, I have to ask, what is your purpose in posting your remarks here if you don't get to the heart of the subject? Why don't you tell all of us just what the case is when theists say, "I have felt god or seen him"? Because if you've got something better, I've yet to hear it. If not, then your purpose here is not to inform, but to tell other people that they're wrong. Which to me is useless, unless you have DO have something better... (Extends ear).
I thought you meant that when they feel god they are really feeling
relief at the thought that they won't have to die after all. But then
you said that that was not what you meant. Next you seemed to be
saying that they feel god because they have been manipulated by
charismatic preachers and emotional music. Now I think you are saying
that they have associated belief in god with positive emotions.
I'd say that theists feel god because:
(1) Like most normal people they have a tendency to over-identify
intent and agency, and to attribute illusory patterns in ordinary
events to an intelligent agent. (There's a decent evolutionary just-so
story about why that might be adaptive.)
(2) They see an overwhelmingly convincing illusion of design in nature
and, not surprisingly, attribute it to an intelligent agent.
(3) They are worried that there might be an omnipotent someone who
knows all the secrets they have in their social interactions.
(4) They are embedded in a social milieu that supports belief in
invisible, powerful agents.
(5) They feel strongly the social support and solidarity they get from
belonging to a group of co-religionists.
I don't think that the fear of mortality or manipulation by preachers
play a dominant role.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 12, 2012, 1:43:02 AM11/12/12
to
> I'm still trying to figure out why YOU think theists "feel god."
Because they tell me this.
> I'd say that theists feel god because:
>
>
>
> (1) Like most normal people they have a tendency to over-identify
>
> intent and agency, and to attribute illusory patterns in ordinary
>
> events to an intelligent agent. (There's a decent evolutionary just-so
>
> story about why that might be adaptive.)
>
>
>
> (2) They see an overwhelmingly convincing illusion of design in nature
>
> and, not surprisingly, attribute it to an intelligent agent.
>
>
>
> (3) They are worried that there might be an omnipotent someone who
>
> knows all the secrets they have in their social interactions.
>
>
>
> (4) They are embedded in a social milieu that supports belief in
>
> invisible, powerful agents.
>
>
>
> (5) They feel strongly the social support and solidarity they get from
>
> belonging to a group of co-religionists.
>
>
>
> I don't think that the fear of mortality or manipulation by preachers
>
> play a dominant role.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 12, 2012, 1:51:17 AM11/12/12
to
> I cannot speak for the OP, but I have a pet theory explaining why people
>
> "feel" the existance of God. Are either of you interested?
>
Burkhard
Nov 12, 2012, 6:26:18 AM11/12/12
to
On 12 Nov, 03:52, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Burkhard. I have posited information
not really. You made some claims and some by and large unsupported
> @ Burkhard. I have posited information
speculations
> from what I've learned here and there. The only thing you've been doing is attempt to shoot holes in nearly all of my statements,
do this. If you don;t like it, I'd suggest you post ideas on your
private blog. In a public forum like this, people will query and test
your claims.
>but haven't given any information that is any better that replaces or overides mine.
with evidence, and also to formulate it precise enough that others
then can scrutinise it. in science, we call this testing and it is
considered a good thing.
Apart from that, there was really not that much information in your
posts. and quite on the contrary to what you claim above, I (and some
others) have given you references to the state of the art in the
research in this field, with a model of the evolutionary origins of
religious thoughts.
> So, I have to ask, what is your purpose in posting your remarks here if you don't get to the heart of the subject?
oriented newsgroup like this - to test and scrutinise ideas. If you
want backslapping and uncritical accolade, this is the wrong NG for
you, as I said before.
> Why don't you tell all of us just what the case is when theists say, "I have felt god or seen him"?
to be even subject totheorising. It depends in the individual theist,
and also on the specific religion s/he adheres to. However, from a
scientific perspective what we we can explore are question such as :
is there a neurological, evolved basis for forms of cognition that
increase in people the likelihood that they become theists, or that
they find theistic modes of explanation convincing, or even "more
likely to report a spiritual experience".
My answer would be broadly speaking yes, with several mechanisms
discussed in the literature (to which I gave references) - overshoot
of a "theory of mind" being one particular prominent of them that I
discussed in a bit more detail.
> Because if you've got something better, I've yet to hear it. If not, then your purpose here is not to inform, but to tell other people that they're wrong.
called "testing", or sometimes "falsification" - we learn by putting
our ideas to scrutiny.
> Which to me is useless,
consider useless...
Mike Duffy
Nov 12, 2012, 8:00:27 AM11/12/12
to
Shawn Lorenzana <darthm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6de8c18e-7589-4cd7...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> ... Are either of you interested?
>>
> Yes Mike.
Consider groups of protohumans. Their are a number of factors relating to
social interactions, but the main one is dominance and submission. Modern-
day dog-breeders are aware of this important factor.
Any of the groups knows how to hunt (or fish, or plant crops, etc.), but
there are certain efficiencies of scale that can only be realized when
everyone participates and plays his specific part. This is especially true
when hunting big game. The hunters might spread out to look for game, but
to make a kill with a minimum of danger to the humans requires a plan. A
good leader will listen to others, but in the end, it is important that
everyone follows the leader's will.
Otherwise, the plan fails. The game escapes or someone is injured.
In groups where everyone does his own thing, more of the young die of
starvation in the winter. In groups where the tendency is to look to your
leader to follow his plan, overall food acquisition is augmented.
After serveral generations, successful groups will have individuals who are
predisposed to follow the leadership of the more powerful, wiser ones
amongst the group. And what could be more powerful or wise than a god?
In modern society, this instinct is also shown by atheists as a willingness
to submit to the rule of law and pay taxes to the "authorities".
Burkhard
Nov 12, 2012, 8:11:34 AM11/12/12
to
On 12 Nov, 13:02, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:
> Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote innews:6de8c18e-7589-4cd7...@googlegroups.com:
examples that test that idea (mainly through computer models of
cooperative games, sometimes through behavioural economics tests in or
or less artificial conditions) :
Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006) Hand of God, mind of man:
punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary
Psychology 4: 219–233.
Johnson, D. D. P. (2008) Gods of War: The Adaptive Logic of Religious
Conflict. In The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, and
Critiques (ed. J. Bulbulia, R. Sosis, C. Genet, R. Genet, E. Harris
& K. Wyman), pp. 111-117.
Sosis, R. & Bressler, E. R. (2003) Cooperation and commune longevity:
A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-Cultural
Research 37, 211-239.
(Sosis flirts a bit with group selection, so some of our regulars may
find him difficult to stomach..)
wrote:
> Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote innews:6de8c18e-7589-4cd7...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> ... Are either of you interested?
>
> > Yes Mike.
>
> Consider groups of protohumans. Their are a number of factors relating to
> social interactions, but the main one is dominance and submission. Modern-
> day dog-breeders are aware of this important factor.
>
> Any of the groups knows how to hunt (or fish, or plant crops, etc.), but
> there are certain efficiencies of scale that can only be realized when
> everyone participates and plays his specific part. This is especially true
> when hunting big game. The hunters might spread out to look for game, but
> to make a kill with a minimum of danger to the humans requires a plan. A
> good leader will listen to others, but in the end, it is important that
> everyone follows the leader's will.
>
> Otherwise, the plan fails. The game escapes or someone is injured.
>
> In groups where everyone does his own thing, more of the young die of
> starvation in the winter. In groups where the tendency is to look to your
> leader to follow his plan, overall food acquisition is augmented.
>
> After serveral generations, successful groups will have individuals who are
> predisposed to follow the leadership of the more powerful, wiser ones
> amongst the group. And what could be more powerful or wise than a god?
That is te "social glue" theory of evolution of religion - typical
>
>
> >> ... Are either of you interested?
>
> > Yes Mike.
>
> Consider groups of protohumans. Their are a number of factors relating to
> social interactions, but the main one is dominance and submission. Modern-
> day dog-breeders are aware of this important factor.
>
> Any of the groups knows how to hunt (or fish, or plant crops, etc.), but
> there are certain efficiencies of scale that can only be realized when
> everyone participates and plays his specific part. This is especially true
> when hunting big game. The hunters might spread out to look for game, but
> to make a kill with a minimum of danger to the humans requires a plan. A
> good leader will listen to others, but in the end, it is important that
> everyone follows the leader's will.
>
> Otherwise, the plan fails. The game escapes or someone is injured.
>
> In groups where everyone does his own thing, more of the young die of
> starvation in the winter. In groups where the tendency is to look to your
> leader to follow his plan, overall food acquisition is augmented.
>
> After serveral generations, successful groups will have individuals who are
> predisposed to follow the leadership of the more powerful, wiser ones
> amongst the group. And what could be more powerful or wise than a god?
examples that test that idea (mainly through computer models of
cooperative games, sometimes through behavioural economics tests in or
or less artificial conditions) :
Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006) Hand of God, mind of man:
punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary
Psychology 4: 219–233.
Johnson, D. D. P. (2008) Gods of War: The Adaptive Logic of Religious
Conflict. In The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, and
Critiques (ed. J. Bulbulia, R. Sosis, C. Genet, R. Genet, E. Harris
& K. Wyman), pp. 111-117.
Sosis, R. & Bressler, E. R. (2003) Cooperation and commune longevity:
A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-Cultural
Research 37, 211-239.
(Sosis flirts a bit with group selection, so some of our regulars may
find him difficult to stomach..)
Bill
Nov 12, 2012, 8:15:55 AM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 1:47 pm, Shawn Lorenzana <darthmandi...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
that I meant "on what basis do you make the claim that theists feel
god." But since I followed that sentence immediately with the
paragraph you snipped:
"I thought you meant that when they feel god they are really feeling
relief at the thought that they won't have to die after all. But then
you said that that was not what you meant. Next you seemed to be
saying that they feel god because they have been manipulated by
charismatic preachers and emotional music. Now I think you are saying
that they have associated belief in god with positive emotions. "
You cannot really have misunderstood me. We both know that the issue
is why theists feel whatever it is they feel about god.
>
> Because they tell me this.
As you probably knew already, that's not the question.
Ah, the Law of Domination, is that a lemma of the Theorem of
Association?
.
> > I'm still trying to figure out why YOU think theists "feel god."
If this were all I had written, then you might be excused for thinking
that I meant "on what basis do you make the claim that theists feel
god." But since I followed that sentence immediately with the
paragraph you snipped:
"I thought you meant that when they feel god they are really feeling
relief at the thought that they won't have to die after all. But then
you said that that was not what you meant. Next you seemed to be
saying that they feel god because they have been manipulated by
charismatic preachers and emotional music. Now I think you are saying
that they have associated belief in god with positive emotions. "
is why theists feel whatever it is they feel about god.
>
> Because they tell me this.
Association?
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 12, 2012, 8:25:31 AM11/12/12
to
Thanks Burkhard for your response. You've confirmed what I suspected about you, you're a shit talker. From this point on, responding to any of your posts are of no consequence, for you bring nothing to the conversation. Go ahead and respond, I'll simply ignore you.
Mike Duffy
Nov 12, 2012, 9:40:07 AM11/12/12
to
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in
news:0f19f21c-93c9-4c1d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006) Hand of God, mind of man:
> punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary
> Psychology 4: 219�233.
> Johnson, D. D. P. (2008) Gods of War: The Adaptive Logic of Religious
> Conflict. In The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, and
> Critiques (ed. J. Bulbulia, R. Sosis, C. Genet, R. Genet, E. Harris
> & K. Wyman), pp. 111-117.
> Sosis, R. & Bressler, E. R. (2003) Cooperation and commune longevity:
> A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-Cultural
> Research 37, 211-239.
I guess I can no longer claim this idea as my own theory.
Also, individuals prone to seek a meaning or a purpose outside of their own
survival needs will end up helping the group. This desire can manifest
itself as religion. In a way, it is a generalized form of altruism.
And I have not touched on the other important factor on survival relating
to food supply, namely plundering other groups for their supplies. Even
today, it is easier to rally troops if you can prove a god is on your side.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
news:0f19f21c-93c9-4c1d...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006) Hand of God, mind of man:
> punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary
> Psychology 4: 219�233.
> Johnson, D. D. P. (2008) Gods of War: The Adaptive Logic of Religious
> Conflict. In The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, and
> Critiques (ed. J. Bulbulia, R. Sosis, C. Genet, R. Genet, E. Harris
> & K. Wyman), pp. 111-117.
> Sosis, R. & Bressler, E. R. (2003) Cooperation and commune longevity:
> A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-Cultural
> Research 37, 211-239.
Also, individuals prone to seek a meaning or a purpose outside of their own
survival needs will end up helping the group. This desire can manifest
itself as religion. In a way, it is a generalized form of altruism.
And I have not touched on the other important factor on survival relating
to food supply, namely plundering other groups for their supplies. Even
today, it is easier to rally troops if you can prove a god is on your side.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Burkhard
Nov 12, 2012, 1:13:42 PM11/12/12
to
work in Boolean algebra and the domination laws there, but didn't
manage yet)
Burkhard
Nov 12, 2012, 1:47:19 PM11/12/12
to
On 12 Nov, 14:42, Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_p...@website.in.sig>
wrote:
There was a very interesting study on that - it's partly a result of
the Johnson paper cited above. it explains why no matter how peaceful
the founder of a religion, they tend to end up militant. Argument runs
roughly like this: Religion facilitates " parochial altruism" That
comes initially at a cost to the individual, so should be selected
against. However, the costs can be recouped by invading others - and
there the enhanced cooperation that religion also furthers comes in
handy. I "think" the paper I have in mind is by Samuel Bowles, but
the only one I can find along these lines is not specific to religion
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7220/full/456326a.html
will try to locate it
wrote:
the Johnson paper cited above. it explains why no matter how peaceful
the founder of a religion, they tend to end up militant. Argument runs
roughly like this: Religion facilitates " parochial altruism" That
comes initially at a cost to the individual, so should be selected
against. However, the costs can be recouped by invading others - and
there the enhanced cooperation that religion also furthers comes in
handy. I "think" the paper I have in mind is by Samuel Bowles, but
the only one I can find along these lines is not specific to religion
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7220/full/456326a.html
will try to locate it
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 12, 2012, 10:37:14 PM11/12/12
to
Everyone please try to stay on the subject of emotional feelings and any connections to their deity of choice. I think we're moving around the topic of religion, which is tied into this subject, but not the focus of my original post. I appreciate any answers to this for thought.
Any theists here to give any thoughts on this is also welcome. I have one question for you peeps though. Why do you say you feel/see/hear god? I left out taste and smell because I've never heard those expressions yet.
Any theists here to give any thoughts on this is also welcome. I have one question for you peeps though. Why do you say you feel/see/hear god? I left out taste and smell because I've never heard those expressions yet.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 12, 2012, 11:33:30 PM11/12/12
to
> Ah, the Law of Domination, is that a lemma of the Theorem of
>
> Association?
No. After doing some digging, I found what I was looking for and may help in clarifying the subject. Look up DOMINANT LAWS OF SUGGESTIBILITY.
>
> Association?
eridanus
Nov 13, 2012, 5:18:34 AM11/13/12
to
El lunes, 12 de noviembre de 2012 13:02:35 UTC, Mike Duffy escribió:
> Shawn Lorenzana <darthm...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:6de8c18e-7589-4cd7...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> ... Are either of you interested?
>
> >>
>
> > Yes Mike.
>
>
>
> Consider groups of protohumans. Their are a number of factors relating to
> social interactions, but the main one is dominance and submission. Modern-
> day dog-breeders are aware of this important factor.
>
>
>
> Any of the groups knows how to hunt (or fish, or plant crops, etc.), but
> there are certain efficiencies of scale that can only be realized when
> everyone participates and plays his specific part. This is especially true
> when hunting big game. The hunters might spread out to look for game, but
> to make a kill with a minimum of danger to the humans requires a plan. A
> good leader will listen to others, but in the end, it is important that
> everyone follows the leader's will.
I think you are describing the behavior of "modern humans" more than the
> Shawn Lorenzana <darthm...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:6de8c18e-7589-4cd7...@googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> ... Are either of you interested?
>
> >>
>
> > Yes Mike.
>
>
>
> Consider groups of protohumans. Their are a number of factors relating to
> social interactions, but the main one is dominance and submission. Modern-
> day dog-breeders are aware of this important factor.
>
>
>
> Any of the groups knows how to hunt (or fish, or plant crops, etc.), but
> there are certain efficiencies of scale that can only be realized when
> everyone participates and plays his specific part. This is especially true
> when hunting big game. The hunters might spread out to look for game, but
> to make a kill with a minimum of danger to the humans requires a plan. A
> good leader will listen to others, but in the end, it is important that
> everyone follows the leader's will.
behavior of proto-humans. I do not imagine protohumans being hunters. Till
they do not invented useful tool to kill, they were proto-humans.
Eridanus
Bill
Nov 13, 2012, 7:42:35 AM11/13/12
to
nothing to add to what we've said already. Except maybe to cue the
Twilight Zone theme music.
Shawn Lorenzana
Nov 13, 2012, 9:48:54 AM11/13/12
to
> I did look it up. It did clarify where you're coming from. I've got
>
> nothing to add to what we've said already. Except maybe to cue the
>
> Twilight Zone theme music.
Another aspect of manpulation of the subconscious is the field of Advertising.
>
> nothing to add to what we've said already. Except maybe to cue the
>
> Twilight Zone theme music.
Glenn
Nov 13, 2012, 10:47:38 AM11/13/12
to
"Shawn Lorenzana" <darthm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f4fbf67b-9ea6-496c...@googlegroups.com...
Earle Jones
Nov 17, 2012, 1:30:14 AM11/17/12
to
In article <cfc3bbe6-0fc8-4573...@googlegroups.com>,
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
..
I don't believe in God.
I believe in Gosh.
And if you don't believe in Gosh,
You will be darned to heck.
earle
*
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
..
>
> I believe god exists, for I take tea with him, every so often. He loves
> tea, not milk, and a just a little spoon of sugar. I serve him Danish
> cookies and he also loves to have a Jack Daniels glass sometimes.
> I love him mostly for the conversation, and it is a good company also
> playing poker. The best friend.
>
> Eridanus
*
> I believe god exists, for I take tea with him, every so often. He loves
> tea, not milk, and a just a little spoon of sugar. I serve him Danish
> cookies and he also loves to have a Jack Daniels glass sometimes.
> I love him mostly for the conversation, and it is a good company also
> playing poker. The best friend.
>
> Eridanus
I don't believe in God.
I believe in Gosh.
And if you don't believe in Gosh,
You will be darned to heck.
earle
*
Earle Jones
Nov 17, 2012, 1:34:59 AM11/17/12
to
In article <proto-9D0EEE....@news.panix.com>,
*
"...and He tell me I am his own.
And the voice we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known."
I learned it as an 8-year-old, and still remember the words.
Fortunately, my scientific education overcame those patently impossible
beliefs at about age 18 (63 years ago!)
earle
*
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <20c7f0ee-df24-4910...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Nov, 09:47, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > El martes, 6 de noviembre de 2012 23:07:53 UTC, Shawn Lorenzana
> > > escribio:
> In article
> <20c7f0ee-df24-4910...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 9 Nov, 09:47, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > El martes, 6 de noviembre de 2012 23:07:53 UTC, Shawn Lorenzana
"...and He tell me I am his own.
And the voice we share as we tarry there,
None other has ever known."
I learned it as an 8-year-old, and still remember the words.
Fortunately, my scientific education overcame those patently impossible
beliefs at about age 18 (63 years ago!)
earle
*
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages