Religion Instinct?!

[Spud]

The point is that....without suitable neural connectivity the relevant experiences cannot be had. So, some people just miss out on the experiences. Not that the experiences are not real but that suitable circuits are not present in some people to enable them to have the experiences.

It may be to do with what a person is brought up to believe. The brain is, I think, more plastic during early years but less so later. So someone
not brought up to say prayers won't develop these neural connections, although experiences in later life might stimulate someone to pray and search for God for the first time. I think the brain still has the capacity to form new brain circuits. Someone who is brought up to believe in God will develop them early.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Aura and biofield are as much 'woo' as Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes.

Utter bollocks. Dark matter etc are hypotheses that are potential explanations for observable phenomena but lack the data to be disconfirmed or confirmed. “Aura and biofield” are just white noise woo – there’s nothing to be (in)validated because the guess is just reified as a fact.

You make this mistake a lot but never address the problem when it’s explained to you. Why is that?     

Maybe much less so ...because the Aura can actually be felt and worked with for healing purposes. Most of our feelings and emotional states can also be explained by the Aura and chakras.

Bollocks squared. If they can be “felt and worked with” then there must be observable, testable findings that can be investigated. Serious medical research would be underway, there’d be professors of biofieldology publishing their work in peer reviewed journals etc.

There’s none of that though is there, any more than there are learned articles on the curative effectiveness of unicorn tears. Why do you suppose that is?

On the other hand, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes are all based on remote measurements and models that could be proved wrong sometime in the future.

Er, sort of – but you do understand that that’s a good thing (because it allows rational people to sort the probably not true from the probably true) right?

You guys are typically programmed to react in an almost robotic fashion to such matters with no attempt at thinking out of the box at all. Pity!  And this is something much more pronounced in the UK, I think. People from the US, Germany, Japan etc. seem much more receptive. They also seem much more capable of integrating diverse aspects of reality.

You’re seriously trying this idiocy again? Seriously though? Yet again, people don’t dismiss your clams and assertions because they’re “programmed” – they dismiss them because there’s not a jot of an iota of a smidgin of evidence to suggest that they’re true. 

Why is this so difficult for you?

The point is that....without suitable neural connectivity the relevant experiences cannot be had. So, some people just miss out on the experiences. Not that the experiences are not real but that suitable circuits are not present in some people to enable them to have the experiences.

But “without suitable neural connectivity” the experiences of Ra, leprechauns and the man in the moon can’t be had either. Yet again you’ve just assumed your premise (that the things you think you “experience” actually are the things you think you experience) and then suggested that other people don’t have the magic reception gear that you have to see them. 

Try to step back from your assumptions and cultural biases for a moment and consider to the best of your ability the reasoning that undoes you.

What are you so afraid of?   

[ekim]

ekim,
(1)  You have it backwards I think. Sriram was claiming that you need special brain wiring to have religious experiences in the first place (“The article I have referred merely says that certain brain connections are required for people to have certain 'religious' experiences.”). What Newberg (apparently) was saying was that religious practices caused a degree of neural re-wiring. Presumably moreover it doesn’t matter much which religion is involved, not for that matter whether similar practices (meditation, yoga etc) have the same effect so the religion bit is irrelevant.

(2)  None of this of course tells you anything at all about whether the various claims of fact of the religious – gods etc – are real.     

(3)  As for gullibility, clearly some people are more suggestible than others. These are the ones that Derren Brown and similar look for, and there's no reason to think them to be less suggestible about religious beliefs than they are about anything else.   

(1)  I'll leave Sriram to explain what he was claiming.  As regards Newberg, he appears to postulate a 'self transcendence basic function of the brain (“How do we continue to evolve and change ourselves as people?”)' and suggests that his findings indicate that religious practices reinforce that function.  I agree that it doesn't matter about the name of the religion, it is just that over the centuries it is quite likely that religions have developed the practices and introduced them as widespread rituals which became very relevant in cementing societies and they mixed with Newberg's postulated other basic brain function (“How do we survive as individuals and as a species?”).

(2)  I suspect that 'gods' have been a necessary concept to help counteract 'self' importance in an effort to 'self' transcend via 'self' surrender/sacrifice.

(3)  I think torridon has the right idea in his reply #72 especially if started at a very young age.

[Enki]

Aura and biofield are as much 'woo' as Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes. Maybe much less so ...because the Aura can actually be felt and worked with for healing purposes. Most of our feelings and emotional states can also be explained by the Aura and chakras. On the other hand, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes are all based on remote measurements and models that could be proved wrong sometime in the future. 

You guys are typically programmed to react in an almost robotic fashion to such matters with no attempt at thinking out of the box at all. Pity!  And this is something much more pronounced in the UK, I think. People from the US, Germany, Japan etc. seem much more receptive. They also seem much more capable of integrating diverse aspects of reality.

Are you so steeped in your cultural traditions, Sriram, that you can't see the wood for the trees? What a pity! Guys like you will no doubt carry on believing in such things as auras and biofields without a shred of evidence that such things actually exist, and then will try, quite dishonestly, to link them to such ideas as dark matter and dark energy which are simply place holders for real observable effects which can be measured but which, at this time, cannot be explained.

Why is it that you seem to be unable to escape from your self imposed, restrictive chains of simply believing in  such 'woo' when you have the potential of opening up your mind to all sorts of exciting ideas? Sad really, although you obviously don't think so!

Incidentally, perhaps one reason why fewer posts are being created on such sections as this one is possibly because those who have tried to put forward their 'faith' positions in the past have been found wanting every time they have been challenged on rationalist grounds, and have simply given up. Even Alan seems to be a sad reflection of his former self when it comes to proselytising. Perhaps we may see a resurrection of the 'belief without evidence' merchants, who knows? Meanwhile I, for one, find no particular reason to get involved.

[Enki]

Incidentally Robin Dunbar, whose work on empathy and social linking, was mentioned as part of the original article by Sriram, was interviewed this morning by Jim Al Khalili on Radio 4. The same interview is repeated tonight at 9.30pm. It is well worth listening to in my estimation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

Are you so steeped in your cultural traditions, Sriram, that you can't see the wood for the trees?

Woo for the trees surely?

[ippy]

Sriram you never seem to progress on from the caged bird picking out a card that tells your fortune for the years to come, type mentality.

Just because I have a feeling about a house that I can't explain doesn't make it some sort of woo.

How about my completely non rational dislike of blue cars, I would never buy one yet there are plenty of people that love blue cars and go out of their way to obtain them, what would the Indian approach be to that, what part of the biofield would that put me in?

Honestly Sriram you really do talk some complete bollocks, try the UK science magazine 'The New Scientist', the editor's a devout atheist it'd help you to join the real world only the science magazine you're burying your head in over there doesn't seem to be doing a good job of spreading reality.

Cheers

[Enki]

enki,

Woo for the trees surely?

Indeed.

[Sriram]

Oh.....its so much fun seeing all of you reacting so uniformly and vociferously.     Fun......but so much ignorance...!  Tut!...Tut!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Oh.....its so much fun seeing all of you reacting so uniformly and vociferously.     Fun......but so much ignorance...!  Tut!...Tut!

Yeah, you'll get "uniformly and vociferously" when you keep posting 2+2=5, keep having your mistake explained to you, and keep posting 2+2=5.

It's very simple: if you think that "aura", "biofield" etc are real and "can be worked with" then all you'd need do to validate the claim is to show the study in which, say, 1,000 people had no treatment and another 1,000 had the woo and then compare the results.

There are no such studies though are there. Why do you suppose that is, especially given what an astonishingly valuable field of medical treatment that would be if there was even a word of truth to it?

No, instead what you do is focus on a blog that's littered with mistakes from beginning to end, and repeat those same mistakes here without ever, ever, addressing the problems you've thereby given yourself.

Short version: if you don't like ignorance, stop posting it.

[ippy]

Oh.....its so much fun seeing all of you reacting so uniformly and vociferously.     Fun......but so much ignorance...!  Tut!...Tut!

On the contrary it's sad to see anyone taking on baseless irrational beliefs that can't be ratified in any sensible way by anyone; how empty.

cheers

[Enki]

Oh.....its so much fun seeing all of you reacting so uniformly and vociferously.     Fun......but so much ignorance...!  Tut!...Tut!

Well actually what comes through to me is your very predictable human reaction of irritation and frustration at not being able to make any sound evidential points in favour of your 'woo'. I think I would be tempted to feel the same if I were making your assertions. Unfortunately in your case it comes over with some sort of misplaced air of superiority.

Understandable it may be, but it doesn't seem to show that you have got very far in your aims of casting off the basic imperfections inherent in the human condition, does it? I suspect you have such a long way to go to even think about achieving your much vaunted spiritual stage. Keep working on it though, you never know!

[jeremyp]

the Aura can actually be felt and worked with for healing purposes.

No it can't.

Most of our feelings and emotional states can also be explained by the Aura and chakras.

And also by the magic wibble worms that live undetectably within our brains.

On the other hand, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes are all based on remote measurements and models that could be proved wrong sometime in the future. 

And you think being based on measurements and falsifiable models is a disadvantage?

You guys are typically programmed to react in an almost robotic fashion

No, you are programmed to react credulously to any snake oil bullshit that your religious and "spiritual" leaders want to peddle to you.

[ekim]

You guys are typically programmed to react in an almost robotic fashion to such matters with no attempt at thinking out of the box at all. Pity!  And this is something much more pronounced in the UK, I think. People from the US, Germany, Japan etc. seem much more receptive. They also seem much more capable of integrating diverse aspects of reality.

I think what your detractors are saying is that it's OK to think outside of the box but any suggested conclusions should be analysed using the scientific method and a probability assessment made as there may be other interpretations especially if there are attempts made to link a proposed spiritual realm with a physical reality.  An example is when Kirlian photography was developed, a connection was automatically made with aura detection.  This link gives a reasonable account of all that followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography

[jeremyp]

I think what your detractors are saying is that it's OK to think outside of the box but any suggested conclusions should be analysed using the scientific method

What other methods is there that works?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I think what your detractors are saying is that it's OK to think outside of the box but any suggested conclusions should be analysed using the scientific method and a probability assessment made as there may be other interpretations especially if there are attempts made to link a proposed spiritual realm with a physical reality.  An example is when Kirlian photography was developed, a connection was automatically made with aura detection.  This link gives a reasonable account of all that followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography

Not quite. I’m not arguing that the scientific method is the only one he should use, but I am saying that he has to have a method of some kind to distinguish his claims from mindless assertion. Reason and evidence (on which science rests) are the only methods I know of that can do the job, but if he doesn’t like them he’s welcome to propose a different method that would reliably distinguish his assertions and claims from nonsense.

So far at least he’s been entirely unable to do that, preferring instead to attempt some disastrously wrong lines of argument. Worse yet, when his (many) mistakes are explained to him he just ignores the rebuttals and repeats the same mistakes.

To cap it all, he then has the unmitigated gall to call other people “ignorant”.

Oh well.     

[Maeght]

The point is that....without suitable neural connectivity the relevant experiences cannot be had. So, some people just miss out on the experiences. Not that the experiences are not real but that suitable circuits are not present in some people to enable them to have the experiences.

By the way ....you guys should thank me for resurrecting the board every now and then from its near death state. The vigor and energy with which you guys collectively react  to my posts is palpable!   

Its about how the brain interprets experiences and external stimuli. Some people's brains are wired to interpret things as religious or spiritual, some people's aren't. Its not about some people being able to detect something which us real whereas others can't.

[Sriram]

I think what your detractors are saying is that it's OK to think outside of the box but any suggested conclusions should be analysed using the scientific method and a probability assessment made as there may be other interpretations especially if there are attempts made to link a proposed spiritual realm with a physical reality.  An example is when Kirlian photography was developed, a connection was automatically made with aura detection.  This link gives a reasonable account of all that followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography

Well...I know that. But the problem is that the 'scientific method' has its limitations. It basically assumes a materialistic basis for life. It is dependent on sense related methods to identify so called 'objective reality'.  That is fine in its place.  No problems.  But it is not everything.

As far as mind related phenomena are concerned such physical methods with external measurements, are unsuitable. We have to depend  on subjective methods only. Problem with this is that subjective reality is normally assumed (by scientist folk) as brain generated having no connection with objective reality. Personal experiences are taken as entirely of internal origin not related to external reality.  This is a mistake.

The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds. 

In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality. They can and do merge. But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.

The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective  observation. It has not moved into the objective area.  But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.

We are too dependent on instruments and have sadly rejected the importance of our own personal experiences.

I am not worried about any detractors at all.    I know plenty of people with whom I can discuss such matters in a very positive way.  I am only giving this board a fresh  lease of life every now and then...!     That is all.  If someone understands what I write, fine...if not, no problem at all.   

[SusanDoris]

On the contrary it's sad to see anyone taking on baseless irrational beliefs that can't be ratified in any sensible way by anyone; how empty.

cheers

Seconded. It is always cheering to read the rational posts here, which is why I only catch up on threads like this if the last post is not by Sriram.

I see in fact that the last post, i.e. the one immediately above mine here, was by Sriram, but as it was the only topic available with a new post, I clicked on the word 'new' anyway.

[ekim]

The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds. 

In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality. They can and do merge. But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.

The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective  observation. It has not moved into the objective area.  But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.

The problem with subjective experiences is they tend to be personal and are difficult to communicate to others (especially verbally) in a way that they can be shared.  They are also open to be viewed by others as delusional or invented.  Bluehillside's latest post to me sums it up like this "I’m not arguing that the scientific method is the only one he should use, but I am saying that he has to have a method of some kind to distinguish his claims from mindless assertion."  Much, if not most, of Hindu philosophy is subjective in nature and uses a subjective based language which I don't think it is wise to confuse with objective scientific language.  You say 'it takes a personal way of sensing it' and there are a variety of 'ways' or methods within, say, Vedanta which can, if practised, throw some light on the subjective language used.  Whether these methods would satisfy Bluehillside's point of view I don't know.

[ippy]

Well...I know that. But the problem is that the 'scientific method' has its limitations. It basically assumes a materialistic basis for life. It is dependent on sense related methods to identify so called 'objective reality'.  That is fine in its place.  No problems.  But it is not everything.

As far as mind related phenomena are concerned such physical methods with external measurements, are unsuitable. We have to depend  on subjective methods only. Problem with this is that subjective reality is normally assumed (by scientist folk) as brain generated having no connection with objective reality. Personal experiences are taken as entirely of internal origin not related to external reality.  This is a mistake.

The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds. 

In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality. They can and do merge. But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.

The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective  observation. It has not moved into the objective area.  But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.

We are too dependent on instruments and have sadly rejected the importance of our own personal experiences.

I am not worried about any detractors at all.    I know plenty of people with whom I can discuss such matters in a very positive way.  I am only giving this board a fresh  lease of life every now and then...!     That is all.  If someone understands what I write, fine...if not, no problem at all.   

Your case instantly gets worse where you describe that there's even more people that subscribe to the same baseless and irrational beliefs you're describing? It doesn't seem to be getting any better this is even more sad than the contents of your former post.

We frequently via our media see so many advances where India's making so many serious advances with all forms of technology, science and health research etc, and successfully pushing itself to the forefront of world business, what happened to yourself and these others you describe within this post of yours; I suppose there'll always be some with a determination to be left behind.

Cheers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Well...I know that. But the problem is that the 'scientific method' has its limitations.

No, that’s not the problem at all. The problem is that, absent the scientific method, you have no method of any kind to distinguish your claims from utter nonsense. Just asserting something to be true isn’t a method, and that’s true whether the assertion concerns auras, biofields or leprechauns.

It basically assumes a materialistic basis for life.

Wrong again – it assumes no such thing. Rather it simply provides a method to investigate and to verify hypotheses of a materialistic nature. If you want to argue for there being a non-material, you have all work ahead of you to provide a method to investigate that claim. And that of course is precisely the point at which you always run away remember? 

It is dependent on sense related methods to identify so called 'objective reality'.  That is fine in its place.  No problems.  But it is not everything.

It may or may not be everything, but on what basis do you asserts that it isn’t?

As far as mind related phenomena are concerned such physical methods with external measurements, are unsuitable.

Tell it to the people who are using just such methods to investigate the workings of mind, neuroscientists in particular.

We have to depend  on subjective methods only. Problem with this is that subjective reality is normally assumed (by scientist folk) as brain generated having no connection with objective reality. Personal experiences are taken as entirely of internal origin not related to external reality.  This is a mistake.

Wrong again. The problem with subjective experience is that they are just that – subjective. One man’s subjective experience of aura is epistemically precisely as (in)valid as the next man’s subjective experience of leprechauns. These experiences are fine for the people who have them, but they offer nothing of value to anyone else because there’s no means to distinguish them from guessing.   

The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds.

They are. One provides a probabilistic means of describing reality that relies on intersubjective experience; the other is just personal opinion.   

In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality.

How do you know that?

They can and do merge.

Again, how do you know that? They might “merge” as a matter of dumb luck, but you have no means to verify the claim remember?

But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.

Or by anything else. In which case, how do you know that they’re not total nonsense? 

The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective  observation. It has not moved into the objective area.  But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.

No, the actual problem is that you have just the white noise claim “biofield” with no means whatever to show that there is any such thing, and you’ve just collapsed into an argumentum ad populum (one of your many errors in reasoning) to support the assertion.

We are too dependent on instruments and have sadly rejected the importance of our own personal experiences.

What is the importance of my personal experience of leprechauns do you think?

I am not worried about any detractors at all.

Why should you as you resolutely ignore the arguments they provide that comprehensively falsify your position, and then repeat exactly the same mistakes over and over again.

I know plenty of people with whom I can discuss such matters in a very positive way.  I am only giving this board a fresh  lease of life every now and then...!      That is all.  If someone understands what I write, fine...if not, no problem at all.

Again, no. The problem is that they understand what you write much better than you do, which is why we can see so easily what’s wrong with it. Your profound dishonesty in just ignoring the rebuttals and repeating the same mistakes over and over again says more about you than you realise. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

The problem with subjective experiences is they tend to be personal and are difficult to communicate to others (especially verbally) in a way that they can be shared.

Not “tend to be”, just “are”. That’s what “subjective” means.

They are also open to be viewed by others as delusional or invented.  Bluehillside's latest post to me sums it up like this "I’m not arguing that the scientific method is the only one he should use, but I am saying that he has to have a method of some kind to distinguish his claims from mindless assertion."

Yes, but that’s not a positive claim that the personal experience (of auras or of leprechauns alike) are necessarily delusional or invented. Either or both may just as a matter of dumb luck be true. What it is though is an argument to explain that Sriram has no grounds to insist his subjective experience “aura” should be epistemically privileged over my subjective experience “leprechauns”.

Much, if not most, of Hindu philosophy is subjective in nature and uses a subjective based language which I don't think it is wise to confuse with objective scientific language.  You say 'it takes a personal way of sensing it' and there are a variety of 'ways' or methods within, say, Vedanta which can, if practised, throw some light on the subjective language used.  Whether these methods would satisfy Bluehillside's point of view I don't know.

That’s a category error. Philosophy is fine, but philosophers don’t make claims about the objective existence of phenomena in the world. If Sriram wants to assert there to be “auras” and “biofields” and expects the claims to be taken seriously then he has all his work ahead of him to propose a method to investigate the claim.

Unfortunately he just runs away when he’s asked to do that, so such claims remain the epistemic equivalent to my claim “leprechauns”. 

[ekim]

ekim,

(!) Yes, but that’s not a positive claim that the personal experience (of auras or of leprechauns alike) are necessarily delusional or invented. Either or both may just as a matter of dumb luck be true. What it is though is an argument to explain that Sriram has no grounds to insist his subjective experience “aura” should be epistemically privileged over my subjective experience “leprechauns”.

(2) That’s a category error. Philosophy is fine, but philosophers don’t make claims about the objective existence of phenomena in the world. If Sriram wants to assert there to be “auras” and “biofields” and expects the claims to be taken seriously then he has all his work ahead of him to propose a method to investigate the claim.

(1)Maybe, but if he can provide a method for another person to experience within themselves what he terms "aura" and you can't produce a subjective experience of what you mean by "leprechaun" then he might have a privileged position.

(2)That depends upon whose category you are using.  I believe that the Indian schools of philosophy would see that term in its original meaning i.e. love of wisdom, rather than as a study of fundamentals or a sytem of thought.  As I see it, to them, wisdom is more about clarity of inner vision or subject consciousness rather than the subjective/objective auras, biofields and other concepts. These tend to be related more to harmonising the body and mind so that they function well and don't distract from the prime goal.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside #96 and #97

A pleasure to read both and I do of course, nod in agreement. It really is sad how the woo pedlars persist in ignoring rational argument.

I think what is most worrying is that there is a persistent refusal even to admit or own that they might be wrong.