1. No. That's like trying to translate a baking recipe using The Standard Model
2. You're here and you're asking so in some small way it has.
3. No. If it could, it would have millennia ago (like e.g. astronomy, architecture).
4. Yes, it has been studied for decades.

I'll bet on Einstein's penny.

"Debate" with whom? Not you! :scream: :rofl:

You're here and you're asking so in some small way it has. — 180 Proof

Hey 180!

Thank you my friend. Let's pick that one to debate if you care to. First, what exactly do you mean there? I can interpret that in numerous ways, but just want to be sure; in what way do you mean "in some small way", and "you're here and you're asking"... ?

For instance, are you suggesting that because we are here, that there is some sort of logical necessity associated with here-ness or otherwise existence? And, what 'percentage' does curiosity have vis-a-vis Darwinian evolution?

Gotta figure it out for yourself just like the preacher says about scripture.

Gotta figure it out for yourself just like the preacher say about scripture. — 180 Proof

??? Does Scripture talk about the nature of curiosity? I didn't think it did...

That's your problem, not scripture's.

That's your problem, not scripture's. — 180 Proof

Not following you on that one my friend. Are you saying Scripture is somehow correct (whatever that means)?

"Not following?" Quit while you're in the head. :smirk:

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, — 3017amen

What is your justification for joining religion with natural/physical sciences? They are antithetical. If your joining of them is the "if" in a hypothetical, and is granted, then you can have anything you want. But what you get is of zero value until and unless you remove the "if." Don't worry, I'll only ask this once.

Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? — 3017amen

As presented in the Abrahamic traditions probably not.

On the other hand if we take religion as belonging to ethnoscience - sometimes called "folk science" a term which I don't like much - then we could gain some illustrations of how we look at the world in an intuitive manner.

Knowing little about religion honestly, I'd dare to stick my neck out and guess that polytheism, when we postulate many gods for different phenomena, might be a better framework for our manifest thinking: Apollo carrying the sun, Zeus throwing thunder when he's angry, Cupid using arrows for love, etc.

But, I'm handwaving.

On the other hand if we take religion as belonging to ethnoscience - sometimes called "folk science" a term which I don't like much - then we could gain some illustrations of how we look at the world in an intuitive manner. — Manuel

Manuel, nice!

I did a little digging, and found ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

Simon Blackburn (Atheist) made that aforementioned definition/comment. I will have more to say later, but for now, it seems to me that your choice of concepts (intuition) was working 'behind the scenes' (his cognition) in his foregoing statement. Meaning, in the other thread, (I think it was PoP) who used the phrase self-organization viz consciousness, that if the result of 'self-organization' is self-awareness/consciousness itself, and intuition is part of that (and has little to no survival advantages when instinct is all that's needed to survive), then we are back to the metaphysics of curiosity itself. In other words, if he (Blackburn) was not curious about things like causation, he would not even be able to posit or postulate same.

Perhaps the consistent theme or takeaway there is;, "abstract structures" from the mind, hence:

1. intuition
2. the color red
3. wonder
4. curiosity
5. the will
6. causation
7. somethingness v. nothingness
8. mathematics
9. music theory
10. love

I don't know how deep ethnoscience goes, it probably varies somewhat from culture to culture, that is, some cultures may have more postulated entities that make the word intelligible than others.

We seem to have an innate structure that looks at the world based on contact mechanics, an object directly touches another one and that's why it moves.

The example I always use is, image being in a park and you see some kid kicking a rubber ball. Based on how strong the kick is and what type of ball it is, we don't seem to be puzzled that rubber balls are moved by us kicking them, it's intuitive in the sense.

Of course, this does not mean the world actually works this way at all (no direct contact, the issue of gravity, friction and all these other things that physics takes into account but that we don't intuitively use in ordinary life) but that's how it appears to us as working.

As for your list, I have doubts. We like to reduce the number of causes and structures to as little rules as possible.

We like to reduce the number of causes and structures to as little rules as possible. — Manuel

I know. However, perhaps the irony is that those same "abstract structures" have more rules than we can imagine. :cool:

Imagine that.

should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness? — 3017amen

They've been doing that singly and collectively since their inception.

You are forcing the obvious and passe into a discussion.

:100: There are many of those (on this forum) who seemingly disagree...I won't mention any names LOL.

(Mini-lesson: don't overlook the obvious.)

Imagine that. — 3017amen

I think this is true as a matter of fact.

Whether you call them "abstract structures" or "laws of mind" in addition to (or considered alongside) the laws of nature, doesn't alter that fact, I think.

As Chomsky would say we are human beings, not angels.

As Chomsky would say we are human beings, not angels. — Manuel

Thank you Manual. Can you contextualize that quote/paraphrase for me? I haven't studied him much... .

Simply put we are part of the natural world, not supernatural entities like angels or God. Being part of the natural world implies that our nature (including our cognitive faculties) has scope and structure, much like any other creature must have them too, if they're natural creatures. What's natural for a bat (echolocation) is alien to a dog, etc.

If we had no given structure, we couldn't be able to create theories at all, everything would come in and go out, like a cloud.

If we had no scope, we could not investigate certain parts of nature at all, we'd be like an amoeba or a jellyfish-like creature, which simply reflect what the environment puts in, with no filter. Then we'd actually be Locke's "white paper".

So to be able to say anything at all, we need to have a fixed, rather rigid, innate cognitive faculty in order to have any faculties (of some depth) at all.

Questions to explore:

1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)?
2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages?
3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness?
4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? — 3017amen

My responses in italics:

1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)? I don't have anything to offer here.

2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages? Curiosity is does not seem to be just a human motivator. I heard somewhere that cats are curious too. It has always seemed to me to be a very good strategy for living in a world where things can change quickly. Knowing what's going on around you is important when you might have to make a decision immediately. That's my intuition. I don't have any specific knowledge. Generally, I am reluctant to jump to conclusions about what behaviors are built in and which are learned.

3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? What we call "reality" is a function of the outside world, but also of human biology, nervous system, psychology, etc. What that means to me is that reality is human in a fundamental way. Religion recognizes that while "rational" approaches don't.

4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? I don't think religious experience is any different from other everyday experience.

You are forcing the obvious and passe into a discussion. — god must be atheist

3017amen - Don't listen to gmba - Your questions were reasonable.

T Clark!

Thank you so much for taking the time to contribute your thoughts. If I could use an urban term, you're one of the well-respected old-schooler's around here who might be more objective in their thinking...that said, and not to digress too terribly into metaphysics (because I want to come back to what science-theoretical physics- has to offer cosmology/causation, & religious phenomena and experience/cognitive science), but over in the [my] other thread, POP asked the following:

"As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?"

That question was posed to 180 and I'm not sure he ever responded to it or cared enough to grapple with it in order to perhaps connect some dots. What's your take on that question?

My own interpretation was basic intentionality ala Schop's the World as W&R/metaphysical will. Or, in my studies, something like what theoretical physicist Paul Davies has mentioned-Panentheism... .

As an aside, I think these natural impulses of wonderment in itself (coming from our stream of consciousness), are consistent with other intrinsic or innate abstract apperceptions about how the world works (abstract mathematical structures) which we find useful.

Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... .

Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?

I am attracted to the idea of a world w here everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?" — 3017amen

Non-living matter is not conscious or emotional in the senses we normally use for those words. For that reason, I don't know what it means to attribute consciousness or emotion to something that is not alive. Consciousness and emotion are behavioral characteristics. I don't think rocks are self-aware. What behavioral evidence shows they are.

My own interpretation was basic intentionality ala Schop's the World as W&R/metaphysical will. Or, in my studies, something like what theoretical physicist Paul Davies has mentioned-Panentheism... . — 3017amen

I'll go back to what I wrote in my earlier post. I think the universe is human in a fundamental way. That's not pantheism. What is it?

As an aside, I think these natural impulses of wonderment in itself (coming from our stream of consciousness), are consistent with other intrinsic or innate abstract apperceptions about how the world works (abstract mathematical structures) which we find useful. — 3017amen

Not sure what you're saying. If you are saying that equations can be beautiful in the same way apple blossoms are....I'm not sure what that means.

From the Stanford entry: "One way to distinguish between science and religion is the claim that science concerns the natural world, whereas religion concerns both the natural and the supernatural."

That pretty much does it for me. But then I'm not a scientist (although mathematics is called the "Queen of the Sciences", it's not one itself.)

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, — 3017amen

Your categorisation is incorrect. There's physical sciences - physics and chemistry - life sciences - biology, environmental science, evolution - geological sciences, and social sciences - sociology, economics.

Religion is not among them, because it deals with matters beyond the purview of the sciences. As has pointed out, categorising science and religion together is bothersome.

Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? — 3017amen

It can if you've been to yoga school, and you think that's religion. Fundamentalists Christians routinely fight to have yoga banned from schools on the basis that it's a foreign religion, but Indians say it's a form of therapeutic discipline and not a religion at all. Good luck sorting that out.

There is something in the notion of 'sacred science' (scientia sacra) but

mathematics is called the "Queen of the Sciences" — jgill

The 'queen of sciences' used to be theology.

Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? — 3017amen

Actually it’s wrong of me to make fun of that, it’s a serious question. The thing is, to answer in accordance with what ‘religion’ usually means, is to say an emphatic ‘no’. As I alluded to in my rather sarcastic answer above, however, it can be ‘yes’. But that ‘yes’ is associated with the religious practice of disciplined introspection - which is emphatically NOT something that Protestant religion encourages.

Where you do find that kind of practice is in relation to Buddhist mindfulness practice. Never mind that it has been diluted and commoditised into ‘macmindfulness’, the idea that one should sit silently and observe the goings on of mind and body, is nevertheless a profound idea. I had a spiritual teacher once, salutations to him, who used to say ‘knowing what you are doing is the highest skill’. Basically the idea is, people act out their compulsions, complexes, all manner of stuff that floats around just below the threshold of conscious attention, and that this gives rise to all manner of mischief and misery. (Hey, Freud knew that too.) People are acting out, not acting. So, yes, if religion was the understanding of ‘self-awareness/consciousness’, then that would be a good thing. But, is that religion? I would say, ask any Christian congregation, and the answer would be a resounding ‘no’.

Your categorisation is incorrect. There's physical sciences - physics and chemistry - life sciences - biology, environmental science, evolution - geological sciences, and social sciences - sociology, economics. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer!

Thank you for your contribution. Of course we'll have to agree to disagree. And that is because life science studies evolution and human beings. And human beings engage in all sorts of behaviors including religious social norms. Accordingly, cognitive science studies the religious experiences of human beings.

One metaphysical question that could be asked here is, if life science is apart of natural science, what is natural about human beings asking/wondering/hypothesizing whether all events must have a cause?

And did our evolution cause us to ask that question?

One aspect of the questions which I see as an area linking religion and the empirical questions underlying the sciences is anthropology. It is an area which I have only read a certain amount about, because there is just so much to wonder and read about, but I do think that it can shed so much light on understanding the the emergence of religion. Writers such as Mary Douglas, on ideas about purity and danger, and the concept of savage mind of Levi Strauss are important. One book which is interesting is James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' ,in the way which it traces the developments mankind went from magic to religion, to science, as a developmental process in thinking perspectives.

Generally, I think that if you limit your focus to the natural sciences, as suggested by your title, you may restrict your scope. The actual content of your questions goes beyond natural sciences. I would imagine that you chose the words natural science, with a view to thinking about the empirical methods of investigating. Of course, this is important as opposed to just introspection, but even if empirical methods are used, there is so many beyond that, in the whole interpretation of the findings. My own view is that the exploration of religion is one which may be best approached in a multidisciplinary way.

People are acting out, not acting. — Wayfarer

And that's most of the difference as history & experience show ...

Religion : natural science :: astrology : astronomy (or alchemy : chemistry) :: just making shit up (mystifications) : fucking around and finding out (good explanations) :: neurosis : diagnosis :: therapy : surgery :: fact-free narrative practices (rituals, fetishizing) : fact-based narrative practices (experiments, error-correcting) :: philosophy's chthonic root (magic, re: here-after) : philosophy's "forbidden" fruit (logic, re: here-now]) ... "acting out" : "acting".

I would imagine that you chose the words natural science, with a view to thinking about the empirical methods of investigating. Of course, this is important as opposed to just introspection, but even if empirical methods are used, there is so many beyond that, in the whole interpretation of the findings. My own view is that the exploration of religion is one which may be best approached in a multidisciplinary way. — Jack Cummins

Jack!

Thank you for joining the discussion. a lot of things to think about here. First, of course cognitive science investigates religious experiences from an empirical template. And yes, what (one of the things that) goes beyond the experience itself is the metaphysics of why we ask why. We discussed the foregoing features of consciousness where things like Kantian intuition play a major role in that... .

I agree that basically to NOT dichotomize one's world view, only seeks to enhance its investigative means/methods. (Speaking of cognitive science, the Maslonian mantra of conscious life being both A AND B; not either/or, is alive and well here... .)

Fundamentalists Christians routinely fight to have yoga banned from schools on the basis that it's a foreign religion, but Indians say it's a form of therapeutic discipline and not a religion at all. Good luck sorting that out. — Wayfarer

Indeed. You probably know I'm not a big Fundy fan. Yet I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either. Hence, for one, the religious experience.



I would say, ask any Christian congregation, and the answer would be a resounding ‘no’.

Most Fundy's tend to be somewhat unsophisticated in their world view. Much like fanatical atheism.

(Not exactly sure 'Jesus' endorsed western organized religious- Catholic, Lutheran, etc.- dogma/teachings either.)

Non-living matter is not conscious or emotional in the senses we normally use for those words. For that reason, I don't know what it means to attribute consciousness or emotion to something that is not alive. Consciousness and emotion are behavioral characteristics. I don't think rocks are self-aware. What behavioral evidence shows they are. — T Clark

I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience.

With respect to John Wheeler's notion of PAP/double slit's (Wheeler's Cloud), I had another thought or simple question.

Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask?

That, also could be analogous to free will insofar as a balance between chance and choice, or randomness in the world of QM (not chaos)….