not, as yet, quite intelligent enough

[bruce_g]

The sense of the spiritual is a sense we all share as conscious species - it acts to tie us all together. The issues then come out of the exaggeration of that spiritual into 'external' beings etc where there is no need for such; they may be fun as children but they are not useful as adults in that they can seed emotions etc and the toy guns become real.
Chris.

No need for such? Need for and according to whom? Shouldn't I recognize others, here for example, or are they just exaggerations of my own neurology?

And if I imagine a god, let's say, who are you to say it is unnecessary? I believe in divine imagination, that revelation comes "through them out there" as well as "them in here". They are just as needed as you are, saying they aren’t needed. If you, in the hope of creating a perfect world, remove views, leanings and personalities which oppose yours, you wind up with a civilization of collective zombies.

 

[lightofreason]

No need for such? Need for and according to whom? Shouldn't I recognize others, here for example, or are they just exaggerations of my own neurology?

And if I imagine a god, let's say, who are you to say it is unnecessary? I believe in divine imagination, that revelation comes "through them out there" as well as "them in here". They are just as needed as you are, saying they aren’t needed. If you, in the hope of creating a perfect world, remove views, leanings and personalities which oppose yours, you wind up with a civilization of collective zombies.

Since there is no perfect world, there is a need for efficiency in function. IF you have a need to imagine a god that is up to you - but if you then kill others under 'instructions' from that image then you have some issues.

The range of POSSIBLE particulars is programmed - it is the realm of the singular that elicits a 'random' element - the point being that despite your need for 'free will' you are still tied to, and seeded by, that particular. It is your singular that imagines but in that imaging, without training re the properties and methods of the particular we can wander off into gaga land and that can be threatening ;-) (creativity and insanity share the same space ;-))

Chris.

 

[hilary]

Since there is no perfect world, there is a need for efficiency in function. IF you have a need to imagine a god that is up to you - but if you then kill others under 'instructions' from that image then you have some issues.

You know, I'm fairly sure he doesn't.

Where is this abstract realm in which there is a need for efficiency in function, and there isn't a need for a God?

 

[martin]

I think you really need to XOR a bit more, Chris.
You mix up your 'science' with your personal beliefs. You also mix up religion with some of its extreme 'gaga' manifestations.
Your thinking, when it comes to religion and so on, seems so muddled and confused - I'm beginning to wonder, are you serious?
Or are you perhaps indeed, as others suggested, playing a game and meanwhile laughing your *ss off?

 

[bruce_g]

IF you have a need to imagine a god that is up to you - but if you then kill others under 'instructions' from that image then you have some issues.

The range of POSSIBLE particulars is programmed - it is the realm of the singular that elicits a 'random' element - the point being that despite your need for 'free will' you are still tied to, and seeded by, that particular. It is your singular that imagines but in that imaging, without training re the properties and methods of the particular we can wander off into gaga land and that can be threatening ;-) (creativity and insanity share the same space ;-))

Chris.

Actually, I agree with this, if belief is pushed to extremes, and ones singular leaves no room for another's singular. I also understand that creativity and insanity share the same space. It is also insanity to fear that everyone with a belief is out to kill you, or that every kid with a toy gun will become murderer. I believe that’s called paranoia.

 

[autumn]

I'm guessing he does believe it, but the ironic aspect of the conversation is his chosen audience. He's a missionary for materialist reductionism. That's important, because it points to an emotional investment in the subject, and should cause people to question what’s really going on here, and ask about the “meta-text” of this thread.

The emotional investment is on being right, but not just right, and simply disinterested in others who don't see the light as clearly as he does, but on being right and also on forcing others to concede that he is right. So, it's like an internally divided approach to social connection with others. I was trying to think of a good IC reference, and I think 38.4 (41) may fit.

Bottom line, the idea, “because we can reduce consciousness to this, all other ways to explain consciousness is false”, is not a valid argument. And that’s what his thought process does. Very, very rigidly.

 

[bruce_g]

I'm guessing he does believe it, but the ironic aspect of the conversation is his chosen audience. He's a missionary for materialist reductionism. That's important, because it points to an emotional investment in the subject, and should cause people to question what’s really going on here, and ask about the “meta-text” of this thread.

The emotional investment is on being right, but not just right, and simply disinterested in others who don't see the light as clearly as he does, but on being right and also on forcing others to concede that he is right. So, it's like an internally divided approach to social connection with others. I was trying to think of a good IC reference, and I think 38.4 (41) may fit.

Bottom line, the idea, “because we can reduce consciousness to this, all other ways to explain consciousness is false”, is not a valid argument. And that’s what his thought process does. Very, very rigidly.

exactamente

 

[pakua]

"Actually, I agree with this, if belief is pushed to extremes, and ones singular leaves no room for another's singular. I also understand that creativity and insanity share the same space. It is also insanity to fear that everyone with a belief is out to kill you, or that every kid with a toy gun will become murderer. I believe that’s called paranoia."

Doesn't even need to go to extremes - this happens every time you have an argument or fight with someone.

 

[bruce_g]

"Actually, I agree with this, if belief is pushed to extremes, and ones singular leaves no room for another's singular. I also understand that creativity and insanity share the same space. It is also insanity to fear that everyone with a belief is out to kill you, or that every kid with a toy gun will become murderer. I believe that’s called paranoia."

Doesn't even need to go to extremes - this happens every time you have an argument or fight with someone.

Pakua, I suppose an argument or fight could be considered extreme, so I agree with you. But, it’s entirely possible to have a belief, even a strong one, and yet not to contend with other beliefs.

 

[lightofreason]

You know, I'm fairly sure he doesn't.

Where is this abstract realm in which there is a need for efficiency in function, and there isn't a need for a God?

Everything In Its Place: Researchers Identify Brain Cells Used To Categorize Images

Boston, MA -- Socks in the sock drawer, shirts in the shirt drawer, the time-honored lessons of helping organize one's clothes learned in youth. But what parts of the brain are used to encode such categories as socks, shirts or any other item, and how does such learning take place?
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2006/08/060828074700.jpg>
PET scans of a 20-year-old and an 80-year-old. (Image courtesy of Harvard Medical School) New research from Harvard Medical School (HMS) investigators has identified an area of the brain where such memories are found. They report in the advanced online Nature that they have identified neurons that assist in categorizing visual stimuli. They found that the activity of neurons in a part of the brain called the parietal cortex encode the category, or meaning, of familiar visual images and that brain activity patterns changed dramatically as a result of learning. Their results suggest that categories are encoded by the activity of individual neurons (brain cells) and that the parietal cortex is a part of the brain circuitry that learns and recognizes the meaning of the things that we see.
"It was previously unknown that parietal cortex activity would show such dramatic changes as a result of learning new categories," says lead author David Freedman, PhD, HMS postdoctoral research fellow in neurobiology. "Some areas of the brain, particularly the frontal and temporal lobes, have been associated with visual categorization. Since these brain areas are all interconnected, an important next step will be to determine their relative roles in the categorization process."
We are not born with a built-in ability to recognize categories like table, chair, and camera. Instead, most categories such as these are learned through experience. Categories are a cornerstone of complex behavior, because they give meaning to the sights and sounds around us. For example, if you are told that a new electronic gadget is a telephone, this instantly provides a great deal of information about its relevant parts (speaker, microphone, keypad for dialing, etc.) and functions.
While much is known about how the brain processes simple visual features such as colors, angles, and motion-directions, less is known about how the brain learns and recognizes the meaning of stimuli. The process of grouping related visual images into categories allows the brain to organize stimuli according to their meaning and makes it possible for us to quickly make sense of our surroundings.
In these experiments, monkeys were taught to play a simple computer game in which they grouped members of a set of visual motion patterns into one of two categories. Freedman and senior author John Assad, PhD, HMS associate professor of neurobiology, then monitored the activity of neurons in two interconnected brain areas, the parietal cortex and the middle temporal area, while the monkeys played the categorization game. The activity of parietal neurons mirrored the monkeys' decisions about which of the two categories each visual pattern belonged. In contrast, neurons in the middle temporal area were more sensitive to differences in the visual appearance among the set of motion patterns and did not encode their category membership.
Category representations in the parietal cortex also changed dramatically with learning and experience. Over the course of several weeks, the monkeys were retrained to group the same visual patterns into two new categories. Parietal cortex activity was completely reorganized as a result of this retraining and encoded the visual patterns according to the newly learned categories.
"This research helps to further the understanding of how the brain learns and recognizes the significance, or meaning, of visual images and demonstrates that learning new categories can cause dramatic and long-lasting changes in brain activity," says Freedman. "We are continuing this work to determine if the parietal cortex is specialized for processing motion-based categories or if it plays a more general role in categorizing other types of visual stimuli, such as shapes, as well."
Freedman is optimistic that research of this type will eventually contribute to a better understanding of neurological diseases and disorders. "Understanding how the brain learns, stores, recognizes and recalls visual information will help us overcome impairments to these functions caused from brain damage and diseases, including strokes, Alzheimer's disease, and schizophrenia," Freedman says.
This research was supported by a Kirschstein postdoctoral National Research Service Award from the National Eye Institute (one of the National Institutes of Health) to Freedman and by grants to Assad from the National Eye Institute and the McKnight Endowment Fund for Neuroscience.

Source: Harvard Medical School
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060828074700.htm

 

[lightofreason]

Pakua, I suppose an argument or fight could be considered extreme, so I agree with you. But, it’s entirely possible to have a belief, even a strong one, and yet not to contend with other beliefs.

The IDM focus is on what is POSSIBLE and, given the research, what is the 'best fit' universal from which comes all of the local differences. The described archetypal forms derived from self-referencing are the universals and each belief system will customise them to 'fit' local context. The issue is on being BORN into that context without awareness of the 'big picture' reflected in the "Language of the Vague" will elicit distorted perspectives. There IS only 'ONE WAY' to perceive - it is in our neurology and so deterministic BUT it is also spanning all neuron-dependent life forms and so is 'vague'. LOCAL context then grounds it all, colours it all to appear as if 'Reality' when the local is but a subset of, but a very detailed format.

Thus all belief systems are LOCAL and made up of hybridisations of the ideal and the material. As such they are metaphors used to represent, to communicate, using the universals. Thus each of us can create our own, customised, singularised, versions of the IC but cognitive analysis of the MANY will bring out the ONE - the template of qualities identified in IDM. Simple.

What IDM shows with its focus on self-referencing is the DETAIL available from these universals - something NOT covered in the local, small world networks of IC interpretations since these levels take things literally, fail to look 'behind' etc.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Previously covered has been the basic brain being unable to differentiate the real from the imagined and so our hybrid reality. Now read on and note the comments on emotion etc (and so the Emotional IC can pick up material repressed by social rules etc as well as interpret inner feelings AS IF derived from some 'other' source):

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/uom-bso082806.php

Brain scan of nuns finds no single 'God spot' in the brain, Université de Montréal study finds

A new study at the Université de Montréal has concluded that there is no single God spot in the brain. In other words, mystical experiences are mediated by several brain regions and systems normally implicated in a variety of functions (self-consciousness, emotion, body representation).
The study published in the current issue of Neuroscience Letters was conducted by Dr. Mario Beauregard from the Department of Psychology at the Université de Montréal and his student Vincent Paquette.

"The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience," explained Beauregard. "This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience, and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God."

Fifteen cloistered Carmelite nuns ranging from 23 to 64-years-old were subjected to an fMRI brain scan while asked to relive a mystical experience rather than actually try to achieve one. "I was obliged to do it this way seeing as the nuns are unable to call upon God at will," said Beauregard.
This method was justified seeing as previous studies with actors asked to enter a particular emotional state activated the same brain regions as people actually living those emotions.
--------------------


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5296728.stm

Doubt cast over brain 'God spot'

There is no single "God spot" in the brain, Canadian scientists say. A University of Montreal team found Christian mystical experiences are mediated by several brain regions. Researchers asked 15 nuns to recount mystical experiences while studying them on MRI scanners, the journal, Neuroscience Letters reported. There has been much debate about how the brain reacts during connections with God among religious followers.

Some people went as far as suggesting there was a specific brain region designed for communication with God. But the researchers claim this study discredits those theories. Nuns are said to experience Unio Mystica - the Christian notion of a mystical union with God - during their 20s.
Researchers asked the nuns aged 23 to 64-years-old to recount such mystical experiences and measured their brain activity through MRI scans. They found increased activity in at least 12 regions of the brain, including areas normally involved with self-consciousness and emotion.

Lead researcher Dr Mario Beauregard said: "The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience. Rather than there being one spot that relates to mystical experiences, we've found a number of brain regions are involved. This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God."

(C) BBC

 

[lightofreason]

and then there is:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/obe.html

AND

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/T/templobelability.html

and add to that the following info:

In the US: Approximately 50% of patients with epilepsy have partial epilepsy. Partial epilepsy is often of temporal lobe origin. However, the true prevalence of TLE is not known, since not all cases of presumed TLE are confirmed by video-EEG and most cases are classified by clinical history and interictal EEG findings alone. The temporal lobe is the most epileptogenic region of the brain. In fact, 90% of patients with temporal interictal epileptiform abnormalities on their EEG have a history of seizures.
History:

Aura
Auras occur in approximately 80% of temporal lobe seizures. They are a common feature of simple partial seizures and usually precede complex partial seizures of temporal lobe origin.
Auras may be classified by symptom type; the types comprise somatosensory, special sensory, autonomic, or psychic symptoms.
Somatosensory and special sensory phenomena
Olfactory and gustatory illusions and hallucinations may occur. Acharya et al found that olfactory auras are associated more commonly with temporal lobe tumors than with other causes of TLE.
Auditory hallucinations consist of a buzzing sound, a voice or voices, or muffling of ambient sounds. This type of aura is more common with neocortical TLE than with other types of TLE.
Patients may report distortions of shape, size, and distance of objects.
These visual illusions are unlike the visual hallucinations associated with occipital lobe seizure in that no formed elementary visual image is noted, such as the visual image of a face that may be seen with seizures arising from the fusiform or the inferior temporal gyrus.
Things may appear shrunken (micropsia) or larger (macropsia) than usual.
Tilting of structures has been reported. Vertigo has been described with seizures in the posterior superior temporal gyrus.
Psychic phenomena
Patients may have a feeling of déjà vu or jamais vu, a sense of familiarity or unfamiliarity, respectively.
Patients may experience depersonalization (ie, feeling of detachment from oneself) or derealization (ie, surroundings appear unreal).
Fear or anxiety usually is associated with seizures arising from the amygdala.
Patients may describe a sense of dissociation or autoscopy, in which they report seeing their own body from outside.
Autonomic phenomena are characterized by changes in heart rate, piloerection, and sweating. Patients may experience an epigastric "rising" sensation or nausea.
Physical:

Following the aura, a temporal lobe complex partial seizure begins with a wide-eyed, motionless stare, dilated pupils, and behavioral arrest. Oral alimentary automatisms such as lip smacking, chewing, and swallowing may be noted. Manual automatisms or unilateral dystonic posturing of a limb also may be observed.
Patients may continue their ongoing motor activity or react to their surroundings in a semipurposeful manner (ie, reactive automatisms). They can have repetitive stereotyped manual automatisms.
A complex partial seizure may evolve to a secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizure.
Patients usually experience a postictal period of confusion, which distinguishes TLE from absence seizures, which are not associated with postictal confusion. In addition, absence seizures are not associated with complex automatisms. Postictal aphasia suggests onset in the language-dominant temporal lobe.
Most auras and automatisms last a very short period—seconds or 1-2 minutes. The postictal phase may last for a longer period (several minutes). By definition, amnesia occurs during a complex partial seizure because of bilateral hemispheric involvement.
Causes:

Approximately two thirds of patients with TLE treated surgically have hippocampal sclerosis as the pathologic substrate.
The etiologies of TLE include the following:
Past infections, eg, herpes encephalitis or bacterial meningitis
Trauma producing contusion or hemorrhage that results in encephalomalacia or cortical scarring
Hamartomas
Gliomas
Vascular malformations (ie, arteriovenous malformation, cavernous angioma)
Cryptogenic: A cause is presumed but has not been identified.
Idiopathic (genetic): This is rare. Familial TLE was described by Berkovic and colleagues, and partial epilepsy with auditory features was described by Scheffer and colleagues.
Hippocampal sclerosis produces a clinical syndrome called mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). MTLE begins in late childhood, then remits, but reappears in adolescence or early adulthood in a refractory form.
Febrile seizures: The association of simple febrile seizure with TLE has been controversial. However, a subset of children with complex febrile convulsions appear to be at risk of developing TLE in later life. Complex febrile seizures are febrile seizures that last longer than 15 minutes, have focal features, or recur within 24 hours.

 

[lightofreason]

...and also...

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/498

(note link to emotion areas (limbic system and so amygdala etc))

 

[lightofreason]

The dynamics of the temporal lobe thunderstorms 'feed' the notion of 'spontaneous conversion' in that the people experiencing the thunderstorms will have VERY vivid hallucinations and, with no explantion, will try to interpret and that will include association of the images and voices with 'god' and so proof of - and they will then change their lives trying to elicit a repeat of the experience.

See comments on a discussion here:

http://clublet.com/why?SpontaneousConversion

 

[martin]

Chris, most of the neurological stuff that you posted today is irrelevant for this discussion.
Subjective experience correlates with neurological activity, YES.
Vivid hallucinations caused by anomalies can be misinterpreted, YES.

But that is not what this conversation is about.
What is it about? It seems that you cannot understand it for some reason ..
I suggest that you read a few papers of Chalmers. Perhaps you will finally see the light then.

Anyway, this is interesting:

"The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience," explained Beauregard. "This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience, and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God."

Right, THAT is good science!
You should be more careful with what you quote.

 

[bruce_g]

This is a conversation?

 

[bruce_g]

Anyway, Martin, I enjoy reading your ideas, even if they don’t elicit a comprehendible response from Chris.

 

[martin]

Yes, I know, this thread is completely ridiculous, a futile exercise in talking to a wall.
Still, I enjoy it, don't know why.

 

[pakua]

Bruce,

"Pakua, I suppose an argument or fight could be considered extreme, so I agree with you. But, it’s entirely possible to have a belief, even a strong one, and yet not to contend with other beliefs."

I'm also referring to minor arguments, anything that pushes your buttons.

Yes, possible, but everyone I know contends at one time or another.

Martin,

Why is it "completely ridiculous, a futile exercise in talking to a wall. " ?

Contending?

 

[bruce_g]

Pakua, sorry bud, ya lost me. Can you summarize your point?

 

[bruce_g]

Pakua, let me reiterate the context we're working with (I think?).

Quote:
Bruce:
"Actually, I agree with this, if belief is pushed to extremes, and ones singular leaves no room for another's singular. I also understand that creativity and insanity share the same space. It is also insanity to fear that everyone with a belief is out to kill you, or that every kid with a toy gun will become murderer. I believe that’s called paranoia."

Pakua:
Doesn't even need to go to extremes - this happens every time you have an argument or fight with someone.

Bruce now:
What happens everytime you have an arguement or fight? That we go insane? Yes, to some degree I agree with that. Imagine those who view something differently are out to kills us? No, I don't agree with that. Kids with toy guns become murderers? Nor that.

Am I missing something?

 

[martin]

Why is it "completely ridiculous, a futile exercise in talking to a wall. " ?

You really don't see any talking to a wall in this thread, Pakua?
Okay, then you don't. I will not kill you for not agreeing with me.
I don't even have a toy gun.

 

[lightofreason]

Chris, most of the neurological stuff that you posted today is irrelevant for this discussion.
Subjective experience correlates with neurological activity, YES.
Vivid hallucinations caused by anomalies can be misinterpreted, YES.

But that is not what this conversation is about.
What is it about? It seems that you cannot understand it for some reason ..
I suggest that you read a few papers of Chalmers. Perhaps you will finally see the light then.

your obviously out of your depth in all of this - you need to move up a bit! I covered Chalmers et all LONG ago - been through it, moved on (he hasnt).

E.g. see my comments in:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/indexa1.html

You should be more careful with what you quote.

you make no sense. The focus is not on the existence of 'god' or not but on the efficiency of the belief in divination when compared to alternative methods - and included in that is consideration of the neurological dynamics involved in the 'divination' perspective.

The IDM material shows how categories derived from our neurology seed our thoughts PRIOR to their expressions - be it internal or external. Given the development of consciousness so 'god' perspectives are understandable as consciousness tries to interpret and in that interpretation will use itself as the measure. (recall the Rabbi and the notion of 'angels' etc.)

The IDM material of the Emotional IC and general questions methods shows there is no need for divination methods (and in fact the IC+ material is more consistant with results etc). THEN add in the XOR material and we find a LOT woven into basic self-referencing across all specialisations. This is all far more efficient than any 'divination' focus - IOW 'god' can be ignored; you are wasting time/energy on it - time/energy better utilised in proactively helping others and yourself as a member of the species -and using the Universal IC focus to do it rather than the self-indulgence shown as you abuse the IC by neglecting it, by marginalising it.

Go back to the first email on this thread and the quote I gave - dont be flippant about it, THINK about it. Then review the research I have supplied with IDM etc. THINK again. Dont depend on the Chalmers of the world - they are too specialist ;-)

As I have said before, and I say again, TIME TO GROW UP.

In that growing we will still have the spiritual element as a tie of our species/collectives etc and so an agent of motivation and potentials - but no more than that is needed - otherwise it all gets too self-indulgent in the form of habit.

Chris aka "The Wall"

 

[getojack]

Whatever

Go back to the first email on this thread and the quote I gave - dont be flippant about it, THINK about it. Then review the research I have supplied with IDM etc. THINK again. Dont depend on the Chalmers of the world - they are too specialist ;-)

I know you were talking to Martin here, but okay, I went back and looked at the Huxley quote.

You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion...

Aldous, how do you know what I've never seen??? I've seen some pretty crazy s**t, lemme tell ya.

Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain.

Maybe that really is why dog's ritually urinate... so God will pee on us. How the hell do I know what's in the mind of a dog?

Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies.

Now this is sheer poetry. I love it. I think I'll repeat it.

Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies.

Heh-heh, you said, "Ass."

Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat's meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence.

Say what??? I don't get it, Aldous. Do you mean to say that the reason cats don't not eat other cats is to not get cat gods to be nice to them? Say what you mean, Aldous.

Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough.

God bless you, Aldous.
And you too, Chris.

 

[hilary]

Ah, Chris - with your last post, you're getting into what I asked a couple of times about what you mean by 'need'. There's the scientific Occam's razor -"we can explain how these experiences happen by reference to brain activity, so we don't need God to create a scientific explanation." And separately there's your view that "we can achieve with IDM everything divination can achieve and more, so we don't need divination to help people." Two different kinds of 'need'. For the first - there are other reasons why we need God, nothing to do with explaining how things happen. The second - efficacy of IDM versus divination - is a matter of opinion.

 

[martin]

I covered Chalmers et all LONG ago - been through it, moved on (he hasnt).

What did you say? Covered?
Don't try to fool me, Chris, the truth is that you have only SKIMMED Chalmers, like you have only SKIMMED quantum physics and so many other things. Right?
To skim means: "to read or glance through (a book, for example) quickly or superficially."

You skim, you don't really understand what it is about, but there is no need to. Why would you try to understand it? Obviously the authors have again failed to notice that it all comes down to recursion of dichotomies! They always do that! Let's "move on"!

Chris, you are hilarious!

 

[lightofreason]

Ah, Chris - with your last post, you're getting into what I asked a couple of times about what you mean by 'need'. There's the scientific Occam's razor -"we can explain how these experiences happen by reference to brain activity, so we don't need God to create a scientific explanation."

... and the more explanations the more there is no need for the 'god' hypothesis. The only issues are in the fragmentation that comes with high level differentiating - we create borders and let loose what lives on them - complexity/chaos dynamics.

The fragmentation leads to increased focus on self-regulation, autonomy etc and so a shrinking of 'Social Capital' where that capital is the souce of basic level 'spirituality' in the form of connectedness with others of our kind. (there is a dynamic involved here that is trying to re-develop Social Capital but in a new form, the old being focused on nepotism/cronyism and so inefficent systems. Through use of external forms, such as the IC, a degree of Social Capital can developed and done so without the baggage of religious or secular fundamentalism.

Some books of interest:

Bulkeley, K. (Ed) (2005) "Soul, Psyche, Brain : New Directions in the Study of Religion and Brain-Mind Science" Palgrave

Hood Jr, R.W., Hill P.C., & Williamson W.P., (2005)"The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism" Guildford Press

containing:
"Religion is perhaps the most comprehensive of all meaning systems and can subsume many other sources of meaning, such as creativity, personal relationships, achievement, work, enduring values and ideals, and so forth. It is in this sense that Baumeister (1991) identifies religion as a "high-order" meaning system. That is, it has a longer time perspective and contains a large number of asociative links with other objects or events of life" p19

The above is valid upto a point - in that it is focused on the realm of the Singular. Regardless of its position in a meaning hierarchy, Religion and all other disciplines are still metaphors for objects/relationships, patterns of differentiating/integrating etc and those seed both our imagined and real experiences. (all three authors have 'formal' associations with the Church prior to moving on to academia and Psychology - unfortunately no refs to the neurological aspects as covered in the past posts re temporal lobe thunderstorms etc - I wish all of these specialists would get out of their boxes at some time!))

two more books:

Lipton, B., (2005)"The Biology of Belief" MountainOfLove

Cacioppo, J., Visser, P.S., & PIckett, C., (2006) "Social Neuroscience : People Thinking about Thinking People" MITP
(this is good neuroscience stuff on social interactions etc and seeing them 'light-up' in the brain)

And separately there's your view that "we can achieve with IDM everything divination can achieve and more, so we don't need divination to help people." Two different kinds of 'need'. For the first - there are other reasons why we need God, nothing to do with explaining how things happen. The second - efficacy of IDM versus divination - is a matter of opinion.

Not there yet

The process of development means a passage in education from the general to the particular (and for consciousness, on into the singular). In this process we pass through the realm of IDM without identifying it (since we had no neurosciences etc to do so) - IOW we started off with exposure to singulars etc - but now we CAN identify it and so teach it PRIOR to specialisations such as divination.

Given the scope of IDM so its learning means that as we develop into adults there is no NEED for divination processes to emerge (or more so any inefficient processes) since the generic form already exists, is known, in IDM. (Self-referencing, XOR properties, emotional mappings (Emotional IC without the IC metaphor))

Furthermore, if some form of divination process does emerge (a local context feature/anomoly) it will be in the form of recognised metaphor for what IDM identifies - IOW it will still be recognised as a map rather than as territory.

Divination etc comes from a top-down perspective lacking connection with the 'bottom'. IDM gives that connection and in doing so re-configures the top; IOW IDM is 'middleware'. IDM does not replace as such it re-configures such that development follows a different path and there is no need for divination etc as we know it but the root 'qualities' are still present.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

What did you say? Covered?
Don't try to fool me, Chris, the truth is that you have only SKIMMED Chalmers, like you have only SKIMMED quantum physics and so many other things. Right?
To skim means: "to read or glance through (a book, for example) quickly or superficially."

You skim, you don't really understand what it is about, but there is no need to. Why would you try to understand it? Obviously the authors have again failed to notice that it all comes down to recursion of dichotomies! They always do that! Let's "move on"!

Chris, you are hilarious!

I have read them all Martin - the quote from Chalmers was the only useful bit in the whole book! All I see in your prose is a touch of 'stress' since to accept the IDM perspective would be, for you, an obvious problem in that it would elicit a paradigm shift very difficult for you to take - and so upsetting Chalmers etc al whom you appear to follow/agree-with. MY point is that Chalmers et al are so focused on the realm of expression (and so more the Singular) that that have lost contact with their species-nature, the particular-general.

Emotional IC works. XOR works. IC+ works and so supporting the IDM assertions

As I said, you are out of your depth- and so you thrash about more, scream more! LOL!

Chris.

 

[autumn]

Interesting. Well, why in the world have you kept your brilliance from Dr. Chalmers? Why have you not allowed him to see the error of his ways? When he could be doing real work like investigating IDM ABX8TY. Certainly this is a travesty for the species if the knowledge is kept hidden. I say allow Dr. Chalmers to see the work! Bring it to him. Let him see the light and make adjustments to his research, so the human race can stop floundering, for God's sake.

I am inferior, but I do have a graduate degree in a Social Science, so I'm used to reading lots of stupid journal articles. From that perspective, I just want to see the plain-old empirical research. Just one litte study comparing the efficacy of the Emotional IC and random divination. Where is this study? Hypothesis, LIt Review, Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis, Conclusion. Study. Comparing the Emotional IC to Random Divination.