iNow

This was touched upon somewhat in the video I shared back in post #24 (specifically, in section 3 of the talk). http://blip.tv/file/2204956 To summarize, my take was that the specific dogmas largely come from those in the tribe/pack/group who were traditional schizotypals, but who were viewed by members of that group as leaders... as people with vision... as sages and/or medicine men. The nature of the dogma itself is largely derived from these types of individuals... individuals who are themselves often rather charismatic and affective... then they are simply spread and taught by cultural means... much like any sharing of information and/or stories within the community, as opposed to being promulgated genetically. Again, this seems to be the result of changes in culture and tribal communities more than it being due to changes in genetics or neurocortical mechanisms. By analogy, different cultures will have different hair styles, and those styles will also change with time. However, the central theme of this thread relates more to the fact that hair grows at all, and less about how we choose to groom it. Thank you for the questions, though.

So, are there any questions or comments regarding any of the articles I've shared?

The post preceding mine was quite off-topic, but contained an assertion so counter to the facts that it warranted correction. No hypocrisy required. While off-topic, I was correcting a comment using evidence such that we could move past the digression and get on with the actual topic of this thread. I also appreciate TAR for making the acknowledgment he did in the above post, and would like to openly apologize for being so curt and harsh with my words last night. I do not wish to make these challenges personal... not by any means... I'm just trying very hard to keep this thread focused since topics which even barely mention god or religion have such a horrible history here. I'm merely seeking to avoid those emotional confrontations (apparently, based on replies such as yours, Severian, I must stipulate that I don't seem to be doing a stellar job with that) by staying clearly tuned into the data, and the illuminating work being done with the minds of children. Now... With that said... I am going to return us... yet again... to the topic at hand by sharing the article below. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination. That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists. Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died. Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion. "What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes. <...> But Bloch argues that religion is only one manifestation of this unique ability to form bonds with non-existent or distant people or value-systems. "Religious-like phenomena in general are an inseparable part of a key adaptation unique to modern humans, and this is the capacity to imagine other worlds, an adaptation that I argue is the very foundation of the sociality of modern human society." "Once we realise this omnipresence of the imaginary in the everyday, nothing special is left to explain concerning religion," he says. Chris Frith of University College London, a co-organiser of a "Sapient Mind" meeting in Cambridge last September, thinks Bloch is right, but that "theory of mind" - the ability to recognise that other people or creatures exist, and think for themselves - might be as important as evolution of imagination. "As soon as you have theory of mind, you have the possibility of deceiving others, or being deceived," he says. This, in turn, generates a sense of fairness and unfairness, which could lead to moral codes and the possibility of an unseen "enforcer" - God - who can see and punish all wrong-doers. "Once you have these additions of the imagination, maybe theories of God are inevitable," he says. I wonder if anyone has any comments about this article, or perhaps one of those I've shared in my last 3 or 4 posts.

TAR, I'm honestly not certain if you understand what is being discussed here. Your posts are rather tangential and more philosophical than scientific. This has been somewhat consistent in your posts to many threads at these fora, where it is difficult to ascertain your level of understanding, and worse, how your posts relate to the subject under discussion. Either way, as for this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 6-7, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. Your worldview and personal feelings mean nothing, especially since they are contradicted by the evidence. Now, I will kindly request from you... yet again... to stay on topic, and... if you cannot figure out how, then simply stop posting.

You seem to like signing off many of your posts with that word. It does not speak well to your stature or credentials. You really need to relax, but that's just a nickel's worth of free advise. Also, with a username like "Dr.Syntax" you should consider more properly formatting your posts... perhaps become better friends with the carriage return and avoid the "wall of text," for starters.

If someone with neg rep gives you rep, does your own rep go down? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOr, perhaps more apropos... If someone with neg reputation neg reps you, does it make your rep go up?

So, I was grocery shopping today. There was this hot little 20-something red head wearing super tight pants and a cute little halter. She was checking me out, which was nice. But then, after I picked up some apples, I was inspecting the cantaloupe, and she came up beside me, mentioning how hard they were. Definitely some innuendo... We made a few more comments, exchanged some pleasantries, when she then proceeded to show me hers and asked me to squeeze her melons. Which... I did. But man... If only I were single, it wouldn't have been a cantaloupe in my hands. Part of me right now is questioning the sanity of monogamy, and whether or not I should have done something more despite my having a serious gf.

Well, if we knew, we'd already be making them that small. I think perhaps we should pass the 22nm threshold and go from there. Unfortunately, achieving 22nm in volume manufacturing has proven rather elusive thus far. The smaller we go, the more difficult it is to accurately deposit the metals and control the reactions in the chambers, hence there are issues with the chips gates and patterns.

I thought this was interesting, and helped to explore the topic a bit more clearly. Enjoy. http://web.uvic.ca/~lalonde/sawa/index.html The false belief measure used was part of a "droodle task" developed by Chandler and Helm (1984). Because this same task also served as the basis for assessing participant’s interpretive understanding of ambiguous stimuli, the procedure and stimuli are described in full in the following section. In this task, children are shown a cartoon drawing depicting an elephant eating a peanut (see Figure 1), and asked to describe the picture. A cover is then placed over the drawing, leaving only a small portion of the original drawing visible. Participants are then introduced to a doll (Michelle), who has "seen" only this small portion of the original picture. They are asked what Michelle might think this is a picture of. A child who has is unable to attribute false beliefs to others will typically respond that Michelle will think this is a picture of an elephant eating a peanut. Because it would be extremely unlikely for anyone who has seen only the limited view of the picture to interpret the picture in this way, such a response can be considered a "reality error" and indicates that the child is inappropriately attributing her own privileged knowledge to the puppet. Children who understand the role of perception in belief formation will attribute a false-belief to the doll; they will say the doll thinks this is a picture of a chimney, or a hockey stick, or some other imagined thing. This first portion of the task served as the measure of false belief understanding. Children who attributed a false belief to Michelle (that is, said that she would think the picture was something other than what the child herself knew it to be), were credited with an understanding of false belief and a copy theory of mind. <more at the link> Figure 1: Elephant eating a peanut (Droodle task)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another. Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty. Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency. Children know humans are not behind the order so the idea of a creating god (or gods) makes sense to them. Children just need adults to specify which one. Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections. Recent research by Paul Bloom, Jesse Bering, and Emma Cohen suggests that children may also be predisposed to believe in a soul that persists beyond death. That belief comes so naturally to children may sound like an attack on religious belief (belief in gods is just leftover childishness) or a promotion of religious belief (God has implanted a seed for belief in children). What both sides should agree upon is the scientific evidence: certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief. http://impartialism.blogspot.com/2009/03/born-believers-naturalness-of-childhood.html Recent scientific study of children’s conceptual structures reveals that children’s minds are naturally receptive to god concepts… In this presentation, relevant scientific evidence is presented. Children are ‘born believers’ in the sense that under normal developmental conditions they almost inevitably entertain beliefs in gods.” <...> Evidence exists that children might find especially natural the idea of a non-human creator of the natural world possessing super powers etc. From infancy one strategy to understand the world is "promiscuous teleology" (Kelemen) we seek purpose even where it does not exist. From an early age children give "intelligent design" - final purpose explanations for a range of phenomenon. 12month old babies know that agents create order (Newman and Keil). The false belief task cannot be dealt with by 3-4 yrar olds, but older kids can. <...> Developmental support for a super-knowing god: When children are evaluated for the knowledge of the contents of a closed box from the age of 3 to 6, after the age of 4 there is a divergence between the understanding of god and human beings (e.g. mother). This was replicated with Mayan children thinking humans are like god when younger and only diverging when older that humans are trickable whereas god is untrickable.Other tasks he covered were the "secret game". As the child gets older there is a divergence between an "untrickable" god and their mom and dog (although a dog is more trickable than mom). This is the first study in the theory of mind that shows that three year olds can make distinctions between different types of mind even if there is still over-attribution of knowledge to different minds. As kids get older their capacity to differentiate different types of mind increase but it takes them longer characterise the knowledge capabilities of people than gods (by two years)! By four years of age half have imaginary friends. Even infants show evidence of reasoning that coloured discs as intentional agents with goals. Reasoning about unseen or non-present agents is a normal activity.

But since my comment was relative to other humans, it still applies. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?

Science doesn't generally bother with "why," it more commonly deals with "how." Check posts #8, 14, 16, and 24. I feel those (and links contained within) come closest to addressing your questions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAs for the origin of dualism, sounds like that might make an interesting thread.

I'm actually pretty awful with analogies, but I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Again, you seem to have misunderstood my point. First, I was responding to A Tripolation, not forufes. Second, I was not referring to this idea of "souls" in any way, shape, or form. Souls had nothing whatsoever to do with my point, I find them to be a rather silly and childish idea, and worse, the concept is ill-defined and not supported by one iota of evidence. It's a rhetorical short-hand used by lazy people to describe some mixture of human characteristics and fantasy based wish thinking, and has no place in a discussion where science and precision are key. Speaking of precision, let me use this opportunity to clarify what I was saying above. A Tripolation suggested that he would still have Christian-like beliefs even if he hadn't grown up in a Christian household. I challenged this, and suggested that had he instead been born on the other side of the planet, he'd much more likely be Muslim or Hindu... in essence that which set of beliefs he holds is largely a result of chance. I was not referring to transplanting unicorns souls, or suggesting that his mind was detachable, or any other similar nonsense. I was stating that our choice of which specific set of beliefs we hold is highly related to where we were born, and to which parents we were born. Let me say this another way. We are all born with certain predispositions, but the way those predispositions manifest is largely contingent upon what we've been taught, and in what culture or environment those teachings occurred. I hope this has helped to clarify my intended point. Souls and peoples feelings are hogwash. Let's stick the science, and ask questions if we don't understand it.

FYI, everyone: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118009136.html?categoryId=13&cs=1 Newmarket Films has acquired U.S. rights to director Jon Amiel's "Creation," starring Jennifer Connelly and Paul Bettany, and plans a December release.

Sounds like you are referring primarily to psychotherapy or counseling psychology, not the broader science. Either way, I know enough psychology to recognize that you are just venting, and that your rant ignores a lot of key areas of study. EDIT: Also, FYI - Psychologists cannot prescribe medications. You must have an MD to do that, despite your claim to the contrary above.

+1.

How are you defining language? By most standards, language came WELL before humans ever entered the scene.

In 2012, reality will provide us with yet more evidence regarding how wrong prophecies are, and how silly people are for buying into such tripe.

I have quoted this comment due to its importance. Please, everyone... Remain focused. This is a very specific topic about a very emotional subject, and the only way we can make it work is to focus on the evidence and the science of belief itself, or instead on things like statistical sampling regarding human proclivities and predispositions. Everyone has done a really great job of staying crisp with their posts thus far (so thank you for that), but I sense a slight change in the momentum and vector of the conversation during the last few posts. I could use each of your help trying to keep this train on the rails. Let's walk in the same direction on the same path together, and not toward one another with an intent to maim and destroy.

Challenge or dispute anything you want, but let's please use facts and established lines of evidence. I don't find this "I believe in my heart" and "this is how I feel" crap to be all too compelling, especially in the face of the robust evidence I've shared in support of my own position.

I think you missed the point of my analogy. The point is, the systems evolved independently. When they come together in one organism, the result is the emergent property of belief. Let's not stretch the analogy too far. No matter how many philosophers you quote in an attempt to demonstrate otherwise, we still evolved specific solutions to specific problems, and when taken together, those solutions result in things like a predisposition toward belief.

Padren - Have you already requested a thread split from the staff, or do I need to start reporting posts myself to make that happen? Please let me know. I'm not about to play these semantic games within a thread which has a very specific topic. TO MAKE THIS SIMPLE: Mods - Kindly please move ALL posts from 55 to (and including) 63, as well as ALL posts from 67 to (and including) 73 to a new thread on "Does evolution mean improvement, and does it have a direction?" Thank you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged With much appreciation to Pangloss, we're good to go. This discussion now has it's own thread.

No, I think we're good now. Thanks so much, Pangloss. It's much appreciated.