View Full Version : Spirituality in Atheism
Do athiests believe in spirituality?
What is their concept of it, if any?
Well am I an atheist? I believe that the concept of God is everything including me and you Sam and all that is universe. I believe that all is cyclical, that I never truly die, but get to be reborn over and over again.
Hmm I've heard some atheists take up Eastern meditation. What do they believe is the benefit of it and why?
synthesizer-patel
05-12-08, 10:50 AM
Well am I an atheist? I believe that the concept of God is everything including me and you Sam and all that is universe. I believe that all is cyclical, that I never truly die, but get to be reborn over and over again.
You sound more like a pantheist
Hmm I've heard some atheists take up Eastern meditation. What do they believe is the benefit of it and why?
Because in my belief one creates his own destiny by mind alone, mind allows oneself to realize their existence and this realization of oneself also allows them to choose their destiny further in this world.
You sound more like a pantheist
yes I am one.
What is a mind?
that which allows one to realize oneself
Crunchy Cat
05-12-08, 11:05 AM
Do athiests believe in spirituality?
My concept of spirituality isn't something that is applicable to the term 'belief'.
What is their concept of it, if any?
It's deep appreciation. It can encompass an abstract such as reality or be focused upon a detail such as a particular sound. I find such appreciation to be quite a pleasurable experience.
So you consider spirituality to be a consequence of a subjective experience?
SAM,
What is spirituality?
If you don't have a concept of it, you can skip the thread. I'll discuss my concept of it but I want to hear what atheists think about it first.
Crunchy Cat
05-12-08, 11:10 AM
So you consider spirituality to be a consequence of a subjective experience?
It would appear to be very related to subjectively experiencing pleasure.
What about negative experiences? Sorrow, death, suffering, pain?
Well am I an atheist? I believe that the concept of God is everything including me and you Sam and all that is universe. I believe that all is cyclical, that I never truly die, but get to be reborn over and over again.
Don't you think it's bad enough inflicting yourself on on in this lifetime without coming back to start all over ?
Don't you think it's bad enough inflicting yourself on on in this lifetime without coming back to start all over ?
bad enough? Life is a struggle and that struggle is what makes it worthwile. There is no bad or good about it.
bad enough? Life is a struggle and that struggle is what makes it worthwile. There is no bad or good about it.
Well, I shall not be returning. Nothing personal !
Well, I shall not be returning. Nothing personal !
well ... I sure hope you change your mind. Because I either was you one time or will be you.
spidergoat
05-12-08, 11:44 AM
I use the term in a metaphorical way. I don't "believe" in it, or think there is really a spirit apart from the qualities imbued in us by our material body. I think so-called eastern meditation is beneficial to counteracting the effects of culture. Beyond simple relaxation, I think it helps train the brain so that you can realize the true nature of the mind (mind being the subjective functioning of the brain). When we are caught up in day to day worries and problems, we don't see the true picture of reality, how we filter experience through past experience, how the true potential of consciousness is more than we could have guessed.
iceaura
05-12-08, 12:37 PM
Yet another poll without a choice I can simply check.
We know there is a context for the human mind because there is more than one mind and they differ, and because the one we know best has changed and faces possibilities.
Michael
05-12-08, 08:40 PM
persoanlly I'd like it to read "I am atheist" not "an atheist" ...
I took "spirituality" to mean something akin to having a ghost-like spirit.
persoanlly I'd like it to read "I am atheist" not "an atheist" ...
Thats silly it will sound like I am a theist.
Crunchy Cat
05-12-08, 09:08 PM
What about negative experiences? Sorrow, death, suffering, pain?
They're experiences like any other. There is not much to appreciate in sorrow, suffering, and pain per se' but there may be related concepts to appreciate. For example, if someone in the family dies then you can always appreciate their memory.
nice thread
a logical continuance and extension of prior topics
i, dear lady, ooga booga alongside the finest of crackpots
witchcraft, psi, quantum physics.......
woohoo!
"god" however, aint an option.
yet
scorpius
05-12-08, 10:32 PM
Do athiests believe in spirituality?
What is their concept of it, if any?
WHAT is this,...spirituality??
nice thread
a logical continuance and extension of prior topics
i, dear lady, ooga booga alongside the finest of crackpots
witchcraft, psi, quantum physics.......
woohoo!
"god" however, aint an option.
yet
Who cares? I don't care to evangelise, only to explore.
WHAT is this,...spirituality??
Spirituality is what is left when you set aside the fact that you are a chemical biological system that runs on energy transfer.
Everything else about you constitutes your spirit or atman.
which part of the quote are you addressing?
the last segment?
which part of the quote are you addressing?
the last segment?
All of it.
I find physics tedious and boring.
All of it.
you asked a question
i replied with my particular notions of spirituality
you then say you do not care
why?
I find physics tedious and boring.
your loss
a version of god(s) might lie within the discipline awaiting discovery
then again it might be a devastating repudiation of that notion
you asked a question
i replied with my particular notions of spirituality
you then say you do not care
why?
Uh sorry, I did not recognise it as a notion of spirituality, my bad.
your loss
a version of god(s) might lie within the discipline awaiting discovery
then again it might be a devastating repudiation of that notion
Yeah, that bothers me too (the first part, not the second). But physics gives me a headache.
Though I have heard some things here which make me very very curious.
Michael
05-13-08, 01:09 AM
I don;t think I have a ghost-like spirit. Perhaps when the bificated brain is not in complete sync there's a feeling of someone else, a ghost, a god, a xenu, being there. Sometimes people hear voices as in schizophrenia - this could lead someone to think they have a spirit-ghost. Also, dreams could have led someone to such a concept. Or simply trying to rationalize the loss of a loved one.
Do athiests believe in spirituality?
What is their concept of it, if any?
I know spirituality exists and that it might do good for some people.
I do believe that some things in spirituality are actually based on reality but they are unrealistically explained. Similar to 'God did it' explanations.
My concept of it.. hmm.
Spirituality: The belief in the supernatural itself and the belief that the supernatural can interact with the natural.
Both beliefs are logical fallacies btw.
Spirituality is what is left when you set aside the fact that you are a chemical biological system that runs on energy transfer.
In my opinion nothing will be left.
iceaura
05-13-08, 03:29 PM
Spirituality is what is left when you set aside the fact that you are a chemical biological system that runs on energy transfer.
Pattern is what is left when you set aside substrate.
With you so far - now what ? Are you asking whether atheists believe in the existence of patterns without substrate, or are you interested in some of these patterns and wonder if atheists "believe in" them, or what ?
Pattern is what is left when you set aside substrate.
With you so far - now what ? Are you asking whether atheists believe in the existence of patterns without substrate, or are you interested in some of these patterns and wonder if atheists "believe in" them, or what ?
I'm wondering what are their ideas beyond reductionism
spidergoat
05-13-08, 04:06 PM
What is the idea of God besides reductionist?
What is the idea of God besides reductionist?
In what way is the idea of God reductionism?
Spirituality is what is left when you set aside the fact that you are a chemical biological system that runs on energy transfer.
What if your spirit were something that arises and emerges from that chemical biological system?
Would that cheapen the idea of spirituality?
What if your spirit were something that arises and emerges from that chemical biological system?
Would that cheapen the idea of spirituality?
Like a methane bog, you mean?
Hmm an interesting notion. Does it?
spidergoat
05-13-08, 07:47 PM
In what way is the idea of God reductionism?
How is it not? Where did the universe come from? God. How does consciousness arise? God. How should we act? God tells us. It's very simplistic.
How is it not? Where did the universe come from? God. How does consciousness arise? God. How should we act? God tells us. It's very simplistic.
Ah yes of course.
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/about.jpg
Like a methane bog, you mean?
No... like patterns, organisation and complex behaviour emerge from simple interactions.
Hmm an interesting notion. Does it?
I don't know. Does it matter? Should we not value spirituality for what it is, rather than where it comes from?
No... like patterns, organisation and complex behaviour emerge from simple interactions.
I don't know. Does it matter? Should we not value spirituality for what it is, rather than where it comes from?
You're the one who is arguing origin, why ask me?:shrug:
You're the one who is arguing origin, why ask me?:shrug:
I'm not arguing origin, I'm posing a question about whether origin affects the value of spirituality.
I'm asking whether you think it would make a difference if the thing that people refer to as spirituality were something that arose from our biology and chemistry, rather than something separate.
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/about.jpg
In this cartoon, for example, spirituality is what prompts the man to question the purpose of himself and the world.
Do you think that it matters whether or not the origin of his spirituality is biochemical?
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/about.jpg
In this cartoon, for example, spirituality is what prompts the man to question the purpose of himself and the world.
Do you think that it matters whether or not the origin of his spirituality is biochemical?
It matters to him, does it not?
If biochemistry is the origin of spirituality, why call it spirituality ?
It matters to him, does it not?
Does it?
The man's spirituality is valuable in and of itself, is it not?
Does its value depend on whether it is material in origin or not?
If biochemistry is the origin of spirituality, why call it spirituality ?
Why not? Why be reductionist about it?
Does it?
The man's spirituality is valuable in and of itself, is it not?
Does its value depend on whether it is material in origin or not?
To theists the soul is something divine, it's not of material origin according to them so it must be from God.
If it would ever be proven that there is no such thing as a soul, it would be devastating to theists..
Why not? Why be reductionist about it?
Reductionist ?
If it's of biological origin, the word 'spirituality' does quite fit.
'Spirituality' means: of incorporeal or immaterial nature.
Also:
spir·it
–noun
1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
Does it?
The man's spirituality is valuable in and of itself, is it not?
Does its value depend on whether it is material in origin or not?
It would seem contrary to feel that a connection is corporeal when the ideology is that it is universal. e.g. do you feel your love for your children is a corporeal and biochemical event that can be regulated by chemicals?
So if I stand on a mountain and feel at one with the "universe" what chemical reaction is that?
Reductionist ?
If it's of biological origin, the word 'spirituality' does quite fit.
'Spirituality' means: of incorporeal or immaterial nature.
Also:
spir·it
–noun
1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
Its alright Enmos, he's explaining what spirituality means to him, an atheist.
Does its value depend on whether it is material in origin or not?
yes
yes it does
spirituality boils down to an experience
if what we experience is solely caused by electrochemical reactions within the brain, it can be mimicked
pete 2, a replicant
a zombie
is that you?
now
account for, or discount the notion of free will
i like to hear your spin
No, he was responding to my question, then I responded to his:
If biochemistry is the origin of spirituality, why call it spirituality ?
Why not? Why be reductionist about it?
Reductionist ? If it's of biological origin, the word 'spirituality' does quite fit.
'Spirituality' means: of incorporeal or immaterial nature.
Well that's what the dictionary says... I think it's a bit more subtle in practice.
I think that spirituality is the awareness of something about yourself that is more than your body. The instinctive dualist nature of the human mind. That which prompts questions like "What's it all about? Is death the end? Why something rather than nothing?"
Some people think that this comes from a true dualism of material and immaterial. Some think that it emerges from the material.
But I think that this aspect of the human condition is valuable in and of itself. The origin of the thing (its fundamental nature) is a separate question to the existence and value of the thing.
Well that's what the dictionary says... I think it's a bit more subtle in practice.
I think that spirituality is the awareness of something about yourself that is more than your body. The instinctive dualist nature of the human mind. That which prompts questions like "What's it all about? Is death the end? Why something rather than nothing?"
Some people think that this comes from a true dualism of material and immaterial. Some think that it emerges from the material.
But I think that this aspect of the human condition is valuable in and of itself. The origin of the thing (its fundamental nature) is a separate question to the existence and value of the thing.
Ok, but I was merely referring to the naming of it.
Surely you see that the word would be unfitting if it's all down to biology ?
yes
yes it does
spirituality boils down to an experience
if what we experience is solely caused by electrochemical reactions within the brain, it can be mimicked
pete 2, a replicant
a zombie
is that you?
Yes, if spirituality were biochemical, then it could be duplicated.
Gustav2 would be a separate human, no less spiritual than yourself.
Would that diminish the value of spirituality?
Ok, but I was merely referring to the naming of it.
Surely you see that the word would be unfitting if it's all down to biology ?
It's just a label, a part of the language. We call electrons particles because of their apparent manifestation, not their fundamental nature.
It's just a label, a part of the language. We call electrons particles because of their apparent manifestation, not their fundamental nature.
Ok, forget it.. it's not important anyway.
It would seem contrary to feel that a connection is corporeal when the ideology is that it is universal. e.g. do you feel your love for your children is a corporeal and biochemical event that can be regulated by chemicals?
So if I stand on a mountain and feel at one with the "universe" what chemical reaction is that?
I don't know.
I don't know if it those things can be reduced to biochemistry or not.
I don't dismiss the idea, because incredibly complex things can emerge from simple reactions, but...
I don't think it matters.
Isn't the love for children and the joy of standing on a mountaintop something to be valued as is?
Does it matter whether they can be reduced to components or not?
what is immaterial? waves as opposed to particles?
I don't know.
I don't know if it those things can be reduced to biochemistry or not.
I don't dismiss the idea, because incredibly complex things can emerge from simple reactions, but...
I don't think it matters.
Isn't the love for children and the joy of standing on a mountaintop something to be valued as is?
Does it matter whether they can be reduced to components or not?
I don't think they can be reduced to components. Like the beta carotene debacle (http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/final-CARET1204), I think its not always possible to understand something by taking it apart and making assumptions about its significance.
Not consisting of matter, in the sense of spirituality.
I don't think waves are meant here.
actually pete, i like that
the initiation and source of an experience is irrelevant
it is the experience that matters
it is also a two way street
an experience sourced from without will trigger a corresponding reaction in the brain
reproduce that same reaction internally and experience the joy again
crazy mad symbiotic stuff i think
that was an old argument used to justify my drug use
that was an old argument used to justify my drug use
Thats a natural consequence for those who confuse the sensation with the experience of it.
you are semantically confused
there can be no sensation without the experience of it
you are semantically confused
there can be no sensation without the experience of it
Perception does not create the sensation, only the experience of it.
I don't think they can be reduced to components. Like the beta carotene debacle (http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/final-CARET1204), I think its not always possible to understand something by taking it apart and making assumptions about its significance.
Yes, I too accept that perhaps spirituality does not arise from biochemistry.
But do you agree that it really doesn't matter?
Or do you think that spirituality would be somehow less valuable if it was, in fact, something that emerges from biochemical interactions?
Yes, I too accept that perhaps spirituality does not arise from biochemistry.
But do you agree that it really doesn't matter?
Or do you think that spirituality would be less valuable if it was, in fact, something that emerges from biochemical interactions?
Hmm thats like asking if I could see the UVB interacting with the 7 dehydrocholesterol to form cholecalciferol would it be less valuable? No, it would not.
codanblad
05-13-08, 10:46 PM
i like the saying morality is divine, all sects are manmade. sums up my feelings pretty well, i figure it makes me a spiritual atheist.
codanblad
05-13-08, 10:51 PM
what's our definition of spirituality though, do i have to believe i have a soul, cos i reject that concept. we're just blood and bone. an interesting thought i heard, why worry about dying, you were dead for thousands of years before you were born and it didn't hurt you.
sam
lets try again
Thats a natural consequence for those who confuse the sensation with the experience of it.
perhaps you mean that the sensation is distinct from that which does the sensing? a differentiation b/w the experience and the experiencer?
Perception does not create the sensation, only the experience of it.
to perceive and to experience is the same thing
the object of this perception is the output from the sensors
sam
lets try again
Thats a natural consequence for those who confuse the sensation with the experience of it.
perhaps you mean that the sensation is distinct from that which does the sensing? a differentiation b/w the experience and the experiencer?
to perceive and to experience is the same thing
the object of this perception is the output from the sensors
Sensation and Perception and the Experience of perception is the same thing also?
..... do i have to believe i have a soul, cos i reject that concept......
lemme take the liberty of quoting tiassa from a long ago thread
What "could" a soul be? Well, the mind-uploaders might have an answer for that question someday. Perhaps it's a strictly bio-electrical phenomenon. I still hold to my conclusion that life is not a chance occurrence but a statistical necessity in the Universe, so it's not as if a soul must be mystical.
If you trust the standard definition of the soul, then the argument freezes there. We doubt everything else about Christianity, for instance ... why not doubt the definition of the soul? Without hostility, sarcasm, or otherwise--for it might be possible to interpret it that way--the result of trusting the Christian definition of the soul in order to argue about it seems more a tool to beat down an idea rather than to explore its possibilities.
Do you trust an ancient, possibly deluded people to define the terms of consideration you award a concept?
What bugs me is when an atheist who has rejected the Christian god that he or she learned in the world applies that to all Gods, even those they may never have heard of. This is the height of arrogance and contradiction, as it makes the atheist religious.
However, in this case, as I have pointed out above, you're letting people you don't trust set the considerations for the definitions.
In other words: Should someone someday find a "soul", do you really expect that it will look like people have described in religious philosophy?
But is there not a possibility that the limited linguistic scope of the past might stain the present considerations?
Is there any one idea of a soul? No. There are many diverse ideas of what the soul is. If we limit ourselves to the characteristics of any one idea, we limit our scope of inquiry. However, we are also limiting our scope of inquiry if we accept at face value what is said.
now
Do you trust an ancient, possibly deluded people to define the terms of consideration you award a concept? (tiassa)
absolutely not! it allows chris and others to waylay into anyone stupid enough to do so
pete puts it quite succinctly
I think that spirituality is the awareness of something about yourself that is more than your body. The instinctive dualist nature of the human mind. That which prompts questions like "What's it all about? Is death the end? Why something rather than nothing?"
the source of mysticism, religion and fantasy. you are conscious of being conscious and mystified why it should be the case.
simple self-awareness is likewise inadequate as a descriptor. one is actually aware of being self-aware
now
the materialistic atheist would come in and yap about complexity/matrix/simulation/patterns/substrates. that maybe so but as of yet it is just some promissory materialism. crap allusions and conclusions without any meaningful evidence
i invoke occam
that i have a real feeling of being distinct from all that i experience is tentatively held to be true pending new info. it is simpler and more elegant than buying into some pseudo scientific babble
/snigger
But is there not a possibility that the limited linguistic scope of the past might stain the present considerations?(tiassa)
a literary masterpiece
/awed
Sensation and Perception and the Experience of perception is the same thing also?
oh dear
now i am muddled
excuse me while i stick an ice pick into my skull
/cackle
oh dear
now i am muddled
excuse me while i stick an ice pick into my skull
/cackle
Well I work in nutrition, so the three are different for me.
If I tell you to close your eyes and put a rod dipped in liquid nitrogen on your back and tell you its a hot poker, what is the sensation, the perception and the experience?
i perceive the object as icy
i experience the object as icy
the auditory sensation is perceived as a lie
hmm
i got it
perception is cerebral
experience is both cerebral and physical in differing degrees depending on the context
?
/laughs
indeed i did
back to the drawing board, i guess
Sam,
What is the difference between sensation and perception?
I thought they were different words for the same thing?
Is there a distinction where "sensation" applies to the actual nerve endings that generate some signal, while "perception" is what your brain makes of that signal?
thats it
sensations are derived from the sense organs
in order to experience the sensation we have to perceive it
yup
sounds about right
there is an overlap and redundancy to some degree
i guess the context is important
introspection into one's consciousness is an epistemological and semantical nightmare. a heightened sense of linguistic discipline has to be maintained or one would suffer the ignominy of devolving into meaningless rhetoric that is usually mistaken for some profound truth
synthesizer-patel
05-14-08, 06:24 AM
......... one would suffer the ignominy of devolving into meaningless rhetoric that is usually mistaken for some profound truth
Ha ha! - welcome to the religion forum :D
i perceive the object as icy
i experience the object as icy
the auditory sensation is perceived as a lie
hmm
i got it
perception is cerebral
experience is both cerebral and physical in differing degrees depending on the context
?
Not necessarily. I can tell you've never been touched by liquid nitrogen :p
You'd not perceive it as icy believe me. You'd perceive it as a a hot poker, especially if you weren't looking and I told you it was.
So although the sensation was really really icy cold, the perception would be one of extreme heat and the experience would be that of a burn (you'd get a burn, btw). There is some argument that heat and cold receptors lie in the same neurons hence the difficulty in separating the two sensations at extremes.
Similarly, when you eat meat, although the sensation is of the individual taste components, the perception is that you are eating "meat" and if it is something like turkey bacon, the experience is that you are missing something or that its a great alternative to pig bacon, depending on your outlook (the experience of a perceived sensation is subjective and modified by knowledge and prior experiences and of course, bias).
Another example of sensation vs perception is the phantom limb.
I'll tell you about an experiment we did on these patients. So we have a patient with a phantom left arm. His arm had been amputated above the left elbow so I had him sitting in my office blindfolded and I took a Q tip and touched different parts of the body and asked him what do you feel? I touched his shoulder and he said oh you're touching my shoulder. I touched his belly and he said oh you're touching my belly. I touched his chest and he said you're touching my chest - not surprising. But the amazing thing is when I touched his face, the left side of his face - remember his left arm is amputated so he has a phantom on the left side - when I touched his cheek he said oh my god doctor, you're touching my left thumb, my missing phantom thumb and he seemed as surprised as I was.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecture1.shtml
nice
the body defective
you indicate instances of faulty sensors
Will we ever be able to see colours we have never have seen? When I tell other people about my wonder to have different perceptions they think it is bogus. Will genetics and medicine make it possible in the future? When? link (http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/outreach/faq.php?catnum=1#414)
I am a massage therapist. After a massage a customer said that when I had massaged her on a certain part of her body she could see a certain color, for ex. red, & at another spot she saw the color blue. Is there a reason to this? link (http://www.cis.rit.edu/mcsl/outreach/faq.php?catnum=1#817)
physiological norms, aberrations and abnormalities
there really is no larger point to all this other than we do not blindly trust our perceptions. our sapience allows for a comparative analysis of all sensory inputs before any strict hypotheses are formulated
sam
But as in the case of Michelson and Morley’s ether tests, more important than all Penfield’s findings was a momentous absence: Nowhere in the brain did he discover any evidence of mind—the consciously deciding, willing, imagining, and creative force in human thought. Penfield summed up his conclusion: The electrode can present to the patient various crude sensations. It can cause him to turn head and eyes, or to move the limbs, or to vocalize and swallow. It may recall vivid re-experience of the past, or present to him an illusion that present experience is familiar, or that the things he sees are growing large and coming near. But he remains aloof. He passes judgment on it all. He says, "things are growing larger," but he does not move for fear of being run over. If the electrode moves his right hand, he does not say, "I wanted to move it." He may, however, reach over with the left hand and oppose his action.
Penfield found that the content of consciousness could be selectively altered by outside manipulation. But however much he probed, he could not enter consciousness itself. He could not find the mind or invade its autonomy. Penfield concludes, "The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from neuronal reflex action.… Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, aware-ness itself does not." (gilder)
The Role of the Temporal Cortex in Certain Psychical Phenomena (http://www.primal-page.com/penfield.htm)
are you familiar with penfield's epilepsy research? comment?
Nope. Ask me anything related to food or nutrition and I've probably heard about it. Not familiar with epilepsy. :)
well it happens to be incidental in this context but never mind....
;)
Or do you think that spirituality would be somehow less valuable if it was, in fact, something that emerges from biochemical interactions?
if you read the penfield excerpt, how would you imagine the test subject/patient's response to the question posed above by you?
Have you read any of Penfield's more recent work, or anything by other modern researchers in neurological consciousness?
cmon pete
cut to the chase, will ya
has the cited experiments been refuted or reinterpretated in a meaningful manner?
link?
if not, what about my question? is it relevant?
The question of whether cognitive, mind-based concepts will eventually become redundant (under a reductionist account) or coexist with neural-based accounts (e.g. as in dual-aspect theory) is for the future to decide. But for now, cognitive, mind-based concepts have an essential role to play in cognitive neuroscience. (Dr Jamie Ward 2006 (http://www.cognitiveneurosciencearena.com/whatiscognitiveneuroscience.asp) - publications (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/publications/scripts/query/?group=year&stylesheet=http://www.ucl.ac.uk/css/uclonline2.css&users[]=ucjtjwa&includeinpress=y&includeunconfirmed=y))
cmon pete
cut to the chase, will ya
has the cited experiments been refuted or reinterpretated in a meaningful manner?
I don't know, I thought you might. But it's 50 year old research, so it would be surprising if there wasn't something more up do date, either refuting or confirming.
if not, what about my question? is it relevant?
I don't think it's relevant. Penfield's response would be relevant, but the test subjects are just randoms.
The question of whether cognitive, mind-based concepts will eventually become redundant (under a reductionist account) or coexist with neural-based accounts (e.g. as in dual-aspect theory) is for the future to decide. But for now, cognitive, mind-based concepts have an essential role to play in cognitive neuroscience. (Dr Jamie Ward 2006 (http://www.cognitiveneurosciencearena.com/whatiscognitiveneuroscience.asp) - publications (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/publications/scripts/query/?group=year&stylesheet=http://www.ucl.ac.uk/css/uclonline2.css&users[]=ucjtjwa&includeinpress=y&includeunconfirmed=y))
That's not surprising. Mind-based models will always have a role in neuroscience.
Models work on different levels, different levels are useful in different contexts.
Einstein's model of gravity is a lower-level model than Newton's model of gravity, but you still use Newton's laws when you're launching satellites.
Newton's model is a lower level than our everyday intuitive understanding , but you don't need Newton's laws to catch a ball.
it just feels interesting to touch a tree, and to know that you and them are made of the same thing, and that forces intrisic to the little bits of you an them are what's keeping your hand from sinking into them, that kind of stuff
lI wouldn't call it spirituality though
lI wouldn't call it spirituality though
Perhaps Numinous (http://somprasad.com/Contact/Numinous.htm)?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.