And people call out pablo for vague questions. I cannot understand what this is supposed to mean. I am assuming "What do you hold in high esteem", because that makes the most sense. God, obviously. It should go unsaid. Second on the list... Knowledge, maybe? It seems a bit pretentious to claim to worship knowledge, but why not, I guess. It would sound better if I said "learning", so why not go with that. I had a few more, but I lost my train of thought. Kyrgios just rolled his ankle and bent his knee sideways. The slow-motion shot is sticking with me. EDIT: I feel like I should add a joke. I regret posting something serious in a conversation that is obviously designed to be humourous.
I guess it leaves room for open-ended answers. Sorry galen for being snippy about it.
If you want. I'm feeling a little bit undefined about it. I believe that there is some kind of force or presence that affects or influences consciousness in such a matter as to create humanity, spirituality, etc beyond what can be explained by cell function. I am trying to figure out the rest currently. "God" is a good name already in use for something like what I describe.
It is for this reason that I generally avoid using the term. That's cool though, I appreciate your expansion on it. I'm an agnostic myself, but I'd prefer it your way to atheism, personally."God" is a good name already in use for something like what I describe.
Q. put it nicely. I've met people whose consciousness has been influenced by a direct experience with, in their view, the "unexplainable." and isn't it pretty to think so to paraphrase Hemingway. Do we suck all the magic and poetry from the force or presence described by Quatrarius if we think of that unexplainable thing as also part of science? Consciousness, this amazing existence, death, galaxies, and the so far unknowable are all astonishing. I know belief in a "higher power" as described by Q is helpful and comforting and satisfying to many humans. Religions have certainly helped organize and control various societies...but now, it seems like there might be another way to live, without worshipping invisible forces.... But let me continue for a moment. I recently have been imagining humanity encountering the heliocentric way of seeing. Day in, day out, people observe the sun come up and go down, obviously moving around the earth. When Aristarchus of Samos, then Copernicus, and Galileo proposed the idea that the earth moved around the sun, they were rejected and punished. It was unthinkable. Now we take it for granted and see the world through their eyes. Given the limitations of our senses, I imagine that there is something yet to be discovered that will contradict everything we think we know. We will find ourselves disbelieving, like the church of Galileo's day, but gradually our notions of reality and also what we worship will change dramatically. Thoughts? b_b, kleinbl00, insomniasexx, coffeesp00ns, eightbitsamuraiI believe that there is some kind of force or presence that affects or influences consciousness in such a matter as to create humanity, spirituality, etc beyond what can be explained by cell function.
A quibble: Galileo wasn't punished for proving the earth revolved around the sun. He was punished for insisting that the Church couldn't moderate what the people were taught about whether or not the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was a hell of a scientist but what set him apart was not his discoveries but his rebellion against Rome. Galileo, then, worshipped truth while the Papacy worshipped power and control. Granted, in their place I would have done exactly what the Papacy did. I just get tired of Galileo being held up as the only smart guy in medieval Europe rather than the only scientist willing to tell the Pope to get bent.
But beyond even that he published what was seen as a public mocking of the pope in Italian, thus bringing his gripe to the public square, the common man. Telling the pope to get bent is a sin. Telling the pope to get bent in front of the world is a mortal sin.
I don't have a problem with the unexplainable. Indeed, I think that the unexplainable is the sort of thing that keeps us searching, reaching for answers. The unexplainable is, in many ways, the motivator of humanity. I think that spirituality (and I say this with all due respect, because I know how important spirituality is to some people, and I would never wish to remove it from them) can often be used as a way to deal with humanity's broader fear of the unknown. Some people are incredibly uncomfortable even thinking, let alone uttering the phrase "I Don't Know". Adding to that, there are also people who hold onto the thought of a higher power because even if they don't know, they need to believe that someone does. People trust heavily in the "truth" of science in the same way for the same reasons, and some have the same religious fervour about science as they do about other things - which is not the point of science. The point of science is to question everything you know until you have a the best answer you can get with the information you have, then move on. The idea that there are things that you can't go to the library to find the answer for is intensely frightening to some people, but I think that that's what really drives our future as humans.
It might sound ridiculous to you or others, but I have no better way of explaining what I mean. I want to be able to represent another opinion, but at this point I cannot. I am sorry for that.
I tend to agree. I find the attitude of most scientists and religious fundamentalists to be hubristic. Religious fundamentalists for obvious reasons, and scientists for more subtle ones. Many scientists attempt to be humble in their language, but fail to be in their actions, as materialism generally presupposes that we know all the big important stuff and we just have details to fill in. There is more that we don't know than we do know about many areas. That animal experience is a product of cell function alone is one of the more banal of the hubristic attitudes kept by many scientists (neuroscientists being some of the worst offenders), but it's illustrative of the popular reductionist trap that we all fall into at times. Suggesting the universe is an integrated whole is a surefire way to get most of your colleagues to dismiss your opinion out of hand, but I think the evidence suggests it is so when viewed from the top down. Personally, I'd like to say that I'm an open minded kind of fella, but is anyone, really? I think our biases control our interactions with each other and with the world to a larger extent than most of us are aware.Given the limitations of our senses, I imagine that there is something yet to be discovered that will contradict everything we think we know.
Yes and no? I don't see much wrong with believing in a purely physical world, from a scientific perspective (atoms give rise to molecules give rise to cells give rise to tissue give rise to organs). Though it definitely falls over when doctors / scientists think that mass-blanking some receptor with a drug will somehow fix a person's problems. Sure, drugs may work, but sometimes it may be more effective to fix a person's head through purely psychological approaches. Or am I misinterpreting what you said?That animal experience is a product of cell function alone is one of the more banal of the hubristic attitudes kept by many scientists (neuroscientists being some of the worst offenders),
There are things we can't predict, because they're too complex. These problems will be solved in time. There are things we can't predict, because they're too chaotic, so effectively they're not determinate systems. These problems we can always estimate better with more information. Then there are things we can't predict, because the problems don't lend themselves, in principle, to the typical materialistic type evaluations. Language, for example, is a metaphysical phenomenon (I mean the language itself, not the way each of us produces it). Psychology exists somewhere on the boundary of language and biology, and is thus not entirely penetrable to biologic investigation.
Ah, makes sense, and a bit different from what I was saying. I don't completely agree, but that's because my current attitude towards the brain is still: "we hardly understand any of it!" Who knows, maybe the things we refer to as thought loops will actually turn out to be giant interconnected loops of neurons signaling each other. Maybe emotions may turn out to have a purely and predictably physical basis. But it's still all maybes in my mind.Psychology exists somewhere on the boundary of language and biology, and is thus not entirely penetrable to biologic investigation.
Thx for your thoughts. I think our biases control our interactions with each other and with the world to a larger extent than most of us are aware.
I agree - "than most of us are aware" is the key phrase. Most of the time, we don't even know what those biases are, because we tend to think we are reasonably self-aware. (I just discovered that underlying certain of my behaviours was a lack of trust. Should I have been more trusting? I don't know -- but I should have been aware that lack of trust was the issue and looked down that rabbit hole for answers instead of trying to control certain outcomes.)
Exactly. It is difficult--perhaps impossible--to find a solution when we don't know the nature of the problem (or if one even exists). (Coincidentally, your example is illustrative of my point of view, however, in that I believe that psychology can't be explained in purely biological terms.)
I don't own the domain of asking vague questions, but I do love the credit for it!
You might not own it, but you are very good at it. Accept credit every day for sparking beautiful, confusing discussions across the Internet.