↪Fooloso4 On a larger scale, it's a deactivation of the DMN (default mode network). — praxis
There are many ways in which the DMN can be disrupted. Are all of them spiritual? If not then you still have not explained what it means for it to be a particular brain state, and nothing besides. — Fooloso4
A disjunction is often positied between the physical and the spiritual. I think that this is a mistake.
From my perspective what some call God is not something separate from us, and it only appears that way because we are observing reality through a mechanism which operates by a process of conceptual division. It's not that we are separate from (enter your preferred term here) it's that we FEEL separate. That feeling is an illusion generated by thought, by the way it works. — Jake
Behaviorism seeks to gain predictive power about human behavior, not to comment on the existence or non-existence of minds. It's an approach to predicting behavior based on inputs and outputs. You're mistaking the point and implications of behaviorism as some kind of definitive statement about the underlying nature of minds, but it's just the opposite. — VagabondSpectre
From the 1930's through the 1960's, American psychology was dominated by behaviorism, whose more extreme proponents held that the mind is but a convenient fiction.... Dr. [B.F.] Skinner....argued that many of the words we use to describe what the mind does are simply metaphors whose origins reveal that they really refer to physical, not mental, phenomena.[\quote]
As I indicated, behaviorism has fallen into disfavor these days.
Cognitive science is broadly "the study of minds", so you must be conceiving of "mind" as something other than the thing cognitive science seeks to study. Are you talking about the hard problem of consciousness? — VagabondSpectre
The processes of the mind reflect the processes of the brain. — VagabondSpectre
There's so much evidence for this that I can't fathom what you're trying to say. — VagabondSpectre
Not argument, just explanation. A tenet of Ignatian spirituality is to see God in all things. When one goes through the Spiritual Exercises, a large part of that process is the ability to become more aware of the presence of God in our every day lives. To those with a predisposition to feel so, this will sound very hokey. But to hundreds of thousands of jesuits that have done the exercises it is very real. They would say all of life is a spiritual experience if you train yourself to be aware of it. Who is to say that they are wrong, or deluded, or anything else, simply because though a different frame a reference one can not understand how such a thing could be. — Rank Amateur
As I indicated, behaviorism has fallen into disfavor these days.
I was using the term "cognitive science" as it is often used, to denote the study of human behavior through the lens of new technologies such as CAT, MNR, and PET scans. When I was a psychology major in the 1970s, we called it "cognitive psychology." "Psychology" became "science" as more hard science techniques joined the team. On this forum, many posters are not willing to recognize that CS is psychology at all. — T Clark
Are you really suggesting that the brain is not the seat of the mind? That if i damage your brain I won't also damage your mind?There is no "hard problem of consciousness." But that's another discussion. — T Clark
Tell me how pain "reflects" electrical current running through living conductors. What does that mean? They have no traits in common that I can see. If you and I are watching basketball on TV, would you say that the television equipment is the same as the presentation of the game? — T Clark
This is not a new argument. It's been around for hundreds of years. It is discussed often on the forum. For you to claim that you cannot fathom it is... well, I'm not sure what it is.
As I've said elsewhere, I think I may open another discussion on the general subject of the underlying assumptions and values of science without focusing on god. Maybe that will make it easier. — T Clark
Let's earnestly try and eek out an agreement before we do so. — VagabondSpectre
So if we didn't FEEL separate it wouldn't matter if we perceived a separation, right? — praxis
Or are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with being separate from (enter your preferred term here)? — praxis
From my point of view, we aren't separate, a fact which anyone can confirm for themselves with this experiment. Hold your breath for 2 minutes. At the psychological level, almost everything we're thinking, feeling and saying is just content that is absorbed from our cultural surroundings and then regurgitated with our names attached.
As I understand it, the illusion that we are separate is part of the life/death cycle, giving us the will to live etc. It's not a matter of right or wrong, good or bad, it's just the nature of reality, like it or not.
The illusion that we are separate does lead to a great deal of suffering however, so it might be wise for us to try to learn how to manage that illusion to some degree. — Jake
this is very much in line with what Rahner would call - "Anonymous Christianity"
worth looking into if you are interested. — Rank Amateur
I think Rahner would say the reason for the continual God debate, and the part of the human condition that seems to make us seek meaning - both stem from this pre apprehension. Without being to identify or even understand what it is, we are all aware something is there. — Rank Amateur
P.S We can always be more earnest in our attempt to understand one another, and I'm legitimately trying harder to understand your position. I want to do more than just restate my position; I'm trying to restate it in a way that better exposes its arteries, both so that it might be easier to understand, and so that you have a better opportunity to attack them with arguments and evidence of your own. If my tentative materialist convictions really are as naive as you say, I want to know why. — VagabondSpectre
From my point of view, we aren't separate,... — Jake
... a fact which anyone can confirm for themselves with this experiment. Hold your breath for 2 minutes.
At the psychological level, almost everything we're thinking, feeling and saying is just content that is absorbed from our cultural surroundings and then regurgitated with our names attached.
As I understand it, the illusion that we are separate is part of the life/death cycle, giving us the will to live etc. It's not a matter of right or wrong, good or bad, it's just the nature of reality, like it or not.
The illusion that we are separate does lead to a great deal of suffering however, so it might be wise for us to try to learn how to manage that illusion to some degree.
So if we didn't FEEL separate it wouldn't matter if we perceived a separation, right?
— praxis
But we do feel separate, so I'm not sure of the point of this question.
Are you saying that "the illusion" is for certain...or are you acknowledging that it is a supposition...an untestable hypothesis...a guess, if you will, about the REALITY? — Frank Apisa
As I said, I think it's my responsibility as a turd in the swimming pool to express myself more clearly. I think I've gone as far as I can in this thread. — T Clark
Religion in practice covers intellectual territory that science can never tread upon, such as determining the starting moral values that individual humans should choose. Science is inherently more narrow minded because it has intentionally blinded itself to the immeasurable and unobservable; not to deny their existence, but instead to place focus on the measurable as the specific puzzle it seeks to solve. — VagabondSpectre
Clearly, you are conceiving a separation. In addition to that, you're holding on to the idea that you aren't separate. — praxis
Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm??? — praxis
ncluding the notion that you're not separate from God or whatever. — praxis
Holding the intellection that the separation is an illusion effectively manages the illusion to some degree? — praxis
There are scientific theories about moral development and what constitutes moral intuition and reasoning. Also, the results of moral choices can be measured. Suffering can be measured. — praxis
As for religion being the arbiter of moral values, it proves to be remarkably moldable by those in the position to use it. — praxis
Do you mean:
Bolding #1: From my point of view good wording.
Bolding #2: As I understand it, good wording.
Bolding #3: In my personal opinion, oh, my. — T Clark
That said, corrupt as most of all religions seem to be, some religious moral tenets are actually quite truthy from any reasonable perspective. — VagabondSpectre
I am not a god, if that is what you're asking. :smile: Seriously, of course this is a hopefully engaging theory and not a perfect proven truth.
I wouldn't call it an untestable hypothesis as anyone who is serious enough can test it for themselves by experimenting with managing the volume of thought.
This has already been done many times by many people over many centuries leading to many different flavored explanations. I'm not claiming the wording I choose is somehow superior to anyone else's explanations, it's just the best I can personally do at the moment. My hope is that my choice of words might occasionally succeed at engaging some number of readers who can't connect with other explanations of these phenomena, such as for example, those of a religious flavor. Whether that ever works is debatable, but this is what I know how to do, so I do it.
Getting back on point, I wouldn't suggest anyone simply accept what I'm saying. Even if one did agree completely, that would just be another pile of thought. Instead, if one is interested in any of this conduct your investigation, have your own experience, and if like me you simply have to explain what you find, explain it however you can.
In my view, the rational approach to this is to focus mostly on the experience itself. As example, if one is hungry the rational approach is to eat the food on the table. Explaining the food might come later, if ever. — Jake
Imho, advice like "treat others as they want to be treated' is not advice about what we should do for somebody else, but instead advice regarding what we can do for ourselves. — Jake
Many people come to religion in crisis when they've spent their lives earnestly trying to make "me" as big as possible and then discovered much to their horror that it doesn't accomplish the desired goal. — Jake
Frankly, I am not sure I understand your thesis. — Frank Apisa
It might be fair to say that everything we do is in the pursuit of pleasure and happiness (and in flight of pain or despair). — VagabondSpectre
Religion is definitely not for me (and it doesn't seem to for you either) but we ought remember that our worldview might not be beneficial to everyone (in theory and in practice) — VagabondSpectre
Some people just don't work without what we perceive as grand superstitions. — VagabondSpectre
I think Rahner would quite agree with all of that. — Rank Amateur
Descriptive theories, not normative theories. They may have indirect normative implications, but they cannot arbitrate human values. (we can describe moral reasoning with a scientific approach, but we cannot derive normative implications about what our starting moral suppositions or moral conclusions ought to be). To do that we need a starting value that is ultimately subjective to individual human minds. — VagabondSpectre
Any reason these can’t these be held as base values and science given the authority to develop normative ethics? — praxis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.