clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
Locked
123
123
clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
 
|
These articles popped up on my radar today: http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/confused-science-writer-claims-that-atheists-might-not-exist/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st088461.html What makes me care is that my friends constantly accuse me of being an atheist, despite my claim that I'm agnostic, a word they seem incapable of parsing. So for about 5 years, now, spurred on in part by Nick's posts to this list, I've been passively looking out for any hint of an objective way to diagnose whether someone's a[n] [a]theist. I use "diagnose" for provocation since I think all claims about metaphysical truth, including both atheism and theism, are delusional. 8^) Does anyone here have or know of any diagnostic algorithms that do NOT rely on self-reporting? I can easily imagine someone saying they do or don't believe in some thing but behaving otherwise. So I'd love to find more objective measures of it... even if they're only informal or N=1. One answer I've thought of myself is the way we react to particular types of fiction. For example, I really enjoy horror movies, witches, zombies, demon possessions, telekinetics who can explode other people's minds -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/ -- and of course the axe murderers that lurk behind every corner and die over and over again only to come back to life for the next installment. (But I can't stand those silly TV shows about serial killers.) Would an atheist enjoy such things that rely fundamentally on the supernatural? Similarly, I know lots of self-reported theists who don't enjoy any fiction that relies on supernatural beings or mechanisms. Where is the actual line between belief and suspension of disbelief? (cf http://vimeo.com/12403866) -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
On 12/18/2014 4:28 PM, glen wrote:
> I've been passively looking out for any hint of an objective way to > diagnose whether someone's a[n] [a]theist. The article referenced in the other thread sums it up. "But if you think that you can’t test it, you shouldn’t put money into the theory either." The agnostic just lets untestable theory development carry on, whereas the atheist would cut off the money, and direct it elsewhere. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
Oh, God, I know I shouldn't touch this topic. But ...., I can't help myself.
First I need to know how to distinguish metaphysics from theism. Once I know that, I think I can answer your question. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:15 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] clinical diagnosis of [a]theism? On 12/18/2014 4:28 PM, glen wrote: > I've been passively looking out for any hint of an objective way to > diagnose whether someone's a[n] [a]theist. The article referenced in the other thread sums it up. "But if you think that you can’t test it, you shouldn’t put money into the theory either." The agnostic just lets untestable theory development carry on, whereas the atheist would cut off the money, and direct it elsewhere. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
[ SPAM ] Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
We have at hand Bee's essay on phenomenology in physics. The essay
might be summarized by considering coherency as a sufficient argument for a scientific theory. Going further and suggesting that non-scientific theories are not worthy of personal or public support is a separate proposal, and one I cannot support. Whether those are ought to be supported by public monies is a separate issue. However, the essay was about what might qualify as a 'good' theory in the context of scientific enquiry. The substance is that gaining coherence by incrementally reducing the accessibility of observables, if not their number, was not a path to a better science theory, insofar as science depended on the testability of axioms within a more-or-less coherent theory. In other words, there's emphatically no science gain in making fewer axioms more coherent at the expense of testability. Coherence does not automatically imply scientific validity, for the number of less-testable coherent theories is large. However, such coherence might be interesting or valuable by other less-phenomenological criteria. Which brings us to the theism diagnosis problem. It seems to me that one could devise various tests for coherence (e.g. smoothness of some class of topological transformations), or, hey some behavior makes sense in some evolutionary context. So, in this sense the coherence is testable, and may even be said to posses a certain artistic, religious or mathematical beauty, even if that doesn't move the science along. I would class theism as one class of arguments about coherence and identity that may fall on some non-scientific value spectrum (not very high, I don't think). Most certainly *not* about testability in the phenomenological sense that the essay addresses. The a-theist or non-theist is not disbelieving, or buying into the sucker-punch question 'why don't you believe'; their attention is simply elsewhere. C. On 12/18/14, 9:14 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 12/18/2014 4:28 PM, glen wrote: >> I've been passively looking out for any hint of an objective way to >> diagnose whether someone's a[n] [a]theist. > The article referenced in the other thread sums it up. "But if you > think that you can’t test it, you shouldn’t put money into the theory > either." > > The agnostic just lets untestable theory development carry on, whereas > the atheist would cut off the money, and direct it elsewhere. > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
[ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
"It seems to me that
one could devise various tests for coherence (e.g. smoothness of some class of topological transformations), or, hey some behavior makes sense in some evolutionary context. So, in this sense the coherence is testable, and may even be said to posses a certain artistic, religious or mathematical beauty, even if that doesn't move the science along." If a theory provides a rich foundation for more theory, it is likely to be some sort of formal system. At that point it should just be called math or computer science and stand on the utility it provides to workers in those fields. It should not presume to relate to the physical (or social or economic) world unless it makes predictions about it. Artistic beauty is subjective, and artists (and comedians) know that. It has to resonate and get at something. If it `works' if it (positively) tests a hypothesis about some aspect or subset of the human experience. Perhaps if there is religious beauty it might look something like legal beauty. Some system of constraints that when enforced avoid social unrest. With the former, though, there's the small matter of having to drink the kool-aide. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
[ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
On 12/18/2014 09:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:> Oh, God, I know I shouldn't touch this topic. But ...., I can't help myself.
> > First I need to know how to distinguish metaphysics from theism. Once I know that, I think I can answer your question. Well, I suspect you don't need anyone to tell you the difference between the word meanings. But since e-mail is cheap, I'll do it anyway. Theism is simply a particular type of metaphysical assertion. In general, a metaphysical assertion is any claim about the supernatural. Personally, I include untestable physical theories in that set, though most people won't. So, string theory is a metaphysical claim, to me. Theism is the metaphysical claim that there exist some sort of unified, interactive, agents with super powers. That's normally thought of as the Xtian God but would include the members of the typical pantheons like Mercury or Cthulhu. Although I'd prefer a (non-self-report-based) test for [a]theism, I'd be thrilled with a test for any metaphysical belief. Is there a way we could test someone to see if they believed in loop quantum gravity? Or if they believe in witches? On 12/18/2014 08:14 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:> On 12/18/2014 4:28 PM, glen wrote: > The article referenced in the other thread sums it up. "But if you think that you can’t test it, you shouldn’t put money into the theory either." > > The agnostic just lets untestable theory development carry on, whereas the atheist would cut off the money, and direct it elsewhere. On 12/18/2014 11:50 PM, Carl Tollander wrote: > I would class theism as one class of arguments about coherence and identity that may fall on some non-scientific value spectrum (not very high, I don't think). Most certainly *not* about testability in the phenomenological sense that the essay addresses. The a-theist or non-theist is not disbelieving, or buying into the sucker-punch question 'why don't you believe'; their attention is simply elsewhere. So, it seems both of you (Marcus and Carl) agree that there might be some test implied by the presence or lack of any participation in theism-related acivities. E.g. if some person is never witnessed engaging in anything related to theism, then they are atheist ... or most likely or mostly atheist. And at the other end, if a person is often engaged in theism-related things, then they are a theist. If we then apply this test to people like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, we can safely conclude that they are theists, as would be all of the outspoken "atheists" who claim to be atheist. Similarly, those many Catholics I know who only go to church on Christmas Eve or Easter and avoid talking about God or the Pope as if such discussions would burn them, would be atheists. That test reminds me of Shakespeare's ""The lady doth protest too much". I don't buy that as an effective test, though. My favorite example is Raymond Smullyan, who seems to be mostly a pantheist, but (at least in one of his books) talks about his affinity for universal consciousness. Regardless, he's the type who will engage in seemingly _any_ belief set, as a game, for long and absolutely deep, intensive play. And he can and does do this without committing to any actual belief in the tenets, grammar, or conclusions to which the game might lead. Since he's both a math- and a meta-math-ematician, we can't really test him with the above test. Engaging in "artificial logics" is his job. But I tend to find that everyone has a little bit of Smullyan in them, which is why I brought up horror movies. Anyone who likes fiction, whether they know it or not, enjoys playing with artificial logics. The coherence (or lack thereof) of any given game doesn't really detract from the game play, at least not to expert game players. It simply helps the game player classify a particular game and then choose to play it when the mood strikes. When you're in the mood for something like Battlestar Galactica, you can't just replace it with an episode of the Outer Limits. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella But now I'm living on the profits of pride ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
[ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
"But I tend to find that everyone has a little bit of Smullyan in them, which is why I brought up horror movies. Anyone who likes fiction, whether they know it or not, enjoys playing with artificial logics. The coherence (or lack thereof) of any given game doesn't really detract from the game play, at least not to expert game players. It simply helps the game player classify a particular game and then choose to play it when the mood strikes. When you're in the mood for something like Battlestar Galactica, you can't just replace it with an episode of the Outer Limits."
Even among people I know relatively well, people that classify themselves as gamers, I still find it alien to imagine spending significant time on working through an engineered finite state machine. I just don't see that as either useful or fun. If I had the mental energy to do that, I'd be working or doing some peripheral activity that is sort of like work. Other times, I don't have the drive, or I am blocked by other things (like now, the VPN not working), or I don't want multitask between hard tasks because that could lead to mistakes (but multitasking between easy and hard tasks is feasible). There's no contradiction if an atheist has a good laugh watching True Blood. It doesn't mean that any serious attention is given to that artificial logic. It's entertainment. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
Suppose you had a device that could read brain waves and determine whether someone believed in [a]theism. Since this wouldn't be a diagnosis based on behavior would it get at what you want? -- Russ Abbott ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Suppose you had a device that could read brain waves and determine whether someone believed in [a]theism. Since this wouldn't be a diagnosis based on behavior would it get at what you want? -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles Google voice: 747-999-5105; CS Dept.: 323-343-6690 Google+: http://GPlus.to/RussAbbott, CS Wiki and the courses I teach. A draft of "Abstractions and Implementations." How the Fed can fix the economy (2 pages): ssrn.com/abstract=1977688. _____________________________________________ On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: "But I tend to find that everyone has a little bit of Smullyan in them, which is why I brought up horror movies. Anyone who likes fiction, whether they know it or not, enjoys playing with artificial logics. The coherence (or lack thereof) of any given game doesn't really detract from the game play, at least not to expert game players. It simply helps the game player classify a particular game and then choose to play it when the mood strikes. When you're in the mood for something like Battlestar Galactica, you can't just replace it with an episode of the Outer Limits." ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
On 12/20/14 6:14 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
It's hypothetical. Assume anything you (or Glen) want. I want to know what Glen would do if he had this capability. On Dec 20, 2014 2:15 PM, "Steve Smith" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
> On 12/20/14 6:14 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>> Suppose you had a device that could read brain waves and determine whether someone believed in [a]theism. Since this wouldn't be a diagnosis based on behavior would it get at what you want? Yes, that would be very nice. I'd first use it on myself to see if my friends are right. I've often found that others have insight into my personality that I simply don't have. Next, I'd use it on them to see if they were right about themselves. Then I'd probably use it on my mom ... but I probably wouldn't tell her the result... or I might have to lie. After going through all that, I'd probably try it out on my cats. I get the distinct feeling they're more rational than I'll ever be. On 12/20/2014 06:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? I have in mind a device that comes with a decent body of mechanistic theory. If it didn't have such, and calibration and validation were mysterious... metaphysical... then it would not be solving any of the problems I have for it. So, the calibration of it would probably work much like that of an MRI or CT scanner. The diagnosis wouldn't be all that magical. However, having had 2 PETs and something like 6 CTs in the past 2 years, I can say that the radiologists are engaged in some mystical hermeneutics! I love the little details they deem fit to jot down or fit to ignore. p.s. What's with all the accusations of [SPAM]? -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Throw the switches, prime the charge, ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
The strict calvinist answer to Glen's question is that no one knows but god who god has chosen to be the religious elect. Even the subject's testimony is no good, for they could be deluded, though you could torture them to determine if how strongly they hold to their delusion. But I guess that torture is probably as empirical as you can get on this sort of question, though you're only testing how stubbornly they hold the belief, not how correct they are that they do believe. -- rec -- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 12/20/14 11:35 AM, glen wrote:
>> On 12/20/14 6:14 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: >>> Suppose you had a device that could read brain waves and determine whether someone believed in [a]theism. Since this wouldn't be a diagnosis based on behavior would it get at what you want? > Yes, that would be very nice. I'd first use it on myself to see if my friends are right. I've often found that others have insight into my personality that I simply don't have. Next, I'd use it on them to see if they were right about themselves. Then I'd probably use it on my mom ... but I probably wouldn't tell her the result... or I might have to lie. > > After going through all that, I'd probably try it out on my cats. I get the distinct feeling they're more rational than I'll ever be. I like this response... it fits what I know of you and it entertains me... > > On 12/20/2014 06:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? > I have in mind a device that comes with a decent body of mechanistic theory. If it didn't have such, and calibration and validation were mysterious... metaphysical... then it would not be solving any of the problems I have for it. So, the calibration of it would probably work much like that of an MRI or CT scanner. I guess my argument about validation is as simple as this: The only validation I can imagine would be against self-reporting. One could find a mechanistic brain-imaging (or measureable neurochemical) system which could be *correlated* with self-reported (a)theist claims. But what of those who remain? Those who *claim* to be theists whose brains light up much more like a-theists and vice-versa? Would the machine's measurements take precedence over the self-reported claim. This fits too well with the known-to-be-flawed "lie detectors" of forensic science. If you were wired to a lie detector and asked if you "believed in god" and it lit up (or not) when you said "yes" (or not), what would you know? That lie detectors measure something besides truth/lie? That YOU don't know your own mind? I suppose if you deliberately lied and the machine lit up... then you might surmise that it "works", but if you truthfully said "I do not believe in god" and it lit up, then would it mean that you don't know your own mind on the subject? Maybe the Solstice tomorrow night will return me to the sanity of not getting caught in such cogitations as this one.... Merry Solstice everyone! - Steve > The diagnosis wouldn't be all that magical. However, having had 2 PETs and something like 6 CTs in the past 2 years, I can say that the radiologists are engaged in some mystical hermeneutics! I love the little details they deem fit to jot down or fit to ignore. > > p.s. What's with all the accusations of [SPAM]? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
[ SPAM ] Re: [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
I would want to know why the person who designed the machine decided
that the output should be. And if his reason or theory was based on behavior. I don't see how it could avoid it. —Barry On 20 Dec 2014, at 6:09, Russ Abbott wrote: > Suppose you had a device that could read brain waves and determine > whether > someone believed in [a]theism. Since this wouldn't be a diagnosis > based on > behavior would it get at what you want? > > *-- Russ Abbott* > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: [ SPAM ] Re: Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
From self-reports, classify a lot of people as being [a]theist. Randomly select half of the people to be used to generate hypotheses, by putting sensors on neurons in the prefrontal cortex and ask questions that would select for consensus builders vs. breakers, [in]tolerance, [anti-] authoritarianism, and any other personality traits one could imagine to separate personalities preferring [a]theism. Like Hubel and Wiesel did with the visual cortex in cats. If some discriminating neurons are found for certain survey questions, and they are repeated across subjects, then go to the other half of people and measure at what rate the various sorts of neurons can be found in the other half (but don’t look at their survey questions before measuring!). Then tabulate the neuron type frequencies vs. the survey questions and see if the neutron type are frequencies are predictive of [a]theism. One might posit that extreme skepticism takes a toll on imagination and/or motivation, e.g. big networks of neurons that serve to kill “bad” signals. Or maybe the opposite is true and only people that play Devil’s Advocate to the bitter end can integrate enough perspectives to be truly creative? Surely someone has at least suggested doing experiments like this? Or maybe the answer is already well-known? (I did not do any searches.) From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith On 12/20/14 6:14 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Calibration and validation of an extant _device_, based on extant theory is very different from the "calibration" or validation of the theory upon which a device might be built. Russ' question was intended to assume the validation of the theory and go on from there. On 12/20/2014 12:15 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > On 12/20/14 11:35 AM, glen wrote: >> On 12/20/2014 06:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? >> I have in mind a device that comes with a decent body of mechanistic theory. If it didn't have such, and calibration and validation were mysterious... metaphysical... then it would not be solving any of the problems I have for it. So, the calibration of it would probably work much like that of an MRI or CT scanner. > > I guess my argument about validation is as simple as this: The only validation I can imagine would be against self-reporting. One could find a mechanistic brain-imaging (or measureable neurochemical) system which could be *correlated* with self-reported (a)theist claims. But what of those who remain? Those who *claim* to be theists whose brains light up much more like a-theists and vice-versa? Would the machine's measurements take precedence over the self-reported claim. > > This fits too well with the known-to-be-flawed "lie detectors" of forensic science. If you were wired to a lie detector and asked if you "believed in god" and it lit up (or not) when you said "yes" (or not), what would you know? That lie detectors measure something besides truth/lie? That YOU don't know your own mind? I suppose if you deliberately lied and the machine lit up... then you might surmise that it "works", but if you truthfully said "I do not believe in god" and it lit up, then would it mean that you don't know your own mind on the subject? > > Maybe the Solstice tomorrow night will return me to the sanity of not getting caught in such cogitations as this one.... p.s. I'm still not receiving any of Nick's messages, though they show up in the archive, e.g. http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2014-December/045222.html And some of my messages don't seem to be getting through either. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella It's long past due that we begin ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Well, returning to the (somewhat silly) ideas presented in the following articles: http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/confused-science-writer-claims-that-atheists-might-not-exist/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st088461.html the point is to find a non-self-reported biomarker for the belief in unexplained phenomena. The ideas of "invisible friends", internal monologues, feelings of interconnectedness or "higher powers", could easily be caused by biochemical or neuronal mechanisms. And the behavior they manifest could be much broader than talking about god or thanking god. Marcus' proposal is for _finding_ the correlates to come up with a functional neuronal biomarker, which might include binding patters across the entire cortex (eg eeg), which I'd prefer. But if we did do one based on behavior, it could be much broader than just references to gods or particular types of god. A good example popped up just today: Drug Unlocks Malleable, Fast-Learning, Child-LIke State In Adult Brain http://www.neomatica.com/2014/11/04/drug-unlocks-malleable-fast-learning-child-like-state-adult-brain/?utm_content=buffer7f0b7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer "Professor Carla Shatz of Stanford University and her colleagues have discovered a way to revert an adult brain to the “plastic”, child-like state that is more able to form new connections quickly. The technical term “plastic” implies the ability to adapt or shape itself to new conditions. The striking results were revealed through experiments on a protein expressed in brain cells known as PirB (this is the name of the protein in the animal model, in humans it is called “LilrB2″), which seems to stabilize neural connections." Many spiritual pagan types include psychoactive drugs as part of their religious practice. And many people cite particular drugs as having helped them commune with various deities, including "nature". And it's relatively common for atheists to claim that part of what makes them an atheist is their ability to (or desire to) change their opinions when presented with new evidence... a kind of neural plasticity. Aside from the biomarkers (proteins or neural patterns), we could design behavioral studies to test for, say, the tendency to talk to yourself (talk to your invisible friends). Or the tendency to refer to others' feelings. "Systems thinking atheists" might well be more theistic than their more reductionist counterparts. Etc. Tests for the following would be interesting: http://www.inquisitr.com/1692212/atheists-rewrite-ten-commandments-mythbusters-adam-savage-judged-new-commands/ > 1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence. > 2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true. > 3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world. > 4. Every person has the right to control over their body. > 5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life. > 6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them. > 7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective. > 8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations. > 9. There is no one right way to live. > 10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. p.s. I'm still not receiving Nick's posts. Had to get the quoted content from the archive. Circa Sun Dec 21 12:32:00 EST 2014 Nick wrote: > I think what Steve (and perhaps others) have sunk their teeth into here is > not whether such research is possible, or even whether it is interesting, if > what one seeks is an understanding of how the brain works; they are (I am?) > wondering in what sense this constitutes a diagnosis of atheism. What is > the validator here, and against what is it validated. I think theism (or > atheism) are lodged in higher order patterns of behavior. So the state of > being an atheist cannot be "diagnosed" EITHER by identifying a particular > neuron OR by asking a person, but only by a careful - ethological, if you > will - long-term study of that person's behavior. When that study is done on > many people, I suspect, you will find a very complex multi dimensional > pattern of variation . a family ressemblence, if you will, among people with > respect to the notion of a personal god. > > > > I have a friend who is currently living a heroic life while being battered > by one circumstance after another, pretty much out of her control. I found > myself writing to her, "I pray that you have a better year." Now, I think > I am as atheist as one can get in a person who does not see himself a > professing or promulgating atheism. Neither of my parents had much interest > in God. However, I did find myself saying, as if to the air, "Oh God, I > somebody could give Joan a break, this year, just a little break." And I > do that sort of thing, a few times a day. > > > > I think that disqualifies me, behaviorally, as an pure atheist, no matter > what I might say to you, if you asked me, "Nick, do you believe in God?", > and no matter what you might find going on in your proposed nucleus > cruciformis. On 12/20/2014 07:21 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > From self-reports, classify a lot of people as being [a]theist. Randomly select half of the people to be used to generate hypotheses, by putting sensors on neurons in the prefrontal cortex and ask questions that would select for consensus builders vs. breakers, [in]tolerance, [anti-] authoritarianism, and any other personality traits one could imagine to separate personalities preferring [a]theism. Like Hubel and Wiesel did with the visual cortex in cats. If some discriminating neurons are found for certain survey questions, and they are repeated across subjects, then go to the other half of people and measure at what rate the various sorts of neurons can be found in the other half (but don’t look at their survey questions before measuring!). Then tabulate the neuron type frequencies vs. the survey questions and see if the neutron type are frequencies are predictive of [a]theism. > > > > One might posit that extreme skepticism takes a toll on imagination and/or motivation, e.g. big networks of neurons that serve to kill “bad” signals. Or maybe the opposite is true and only people that play Devil’s Advocate to the bitter end can integrate enough perspectives to be truly creative? > > > > Surely someone has at least suggested doing experiments like this? Or maybe the answer is already well-known? (I did not do any searches.) -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella From the book, the word is spoken ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
[ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
"Marcus' proposal is for _finding_ the correlates to come up with a functional neuronal biomarker, which might include binding patters across the entire cortex (eg eeg), which I'd prefer."
I thinking of complex or hypercomplex cells of the visual cortex -- that a hierarchical combination of simple cells could combine to give a more complex behavior like detecting oriented, moving shapes of a given size. Similar to the way well-designed programs encapsulate implementation complexity behind straightforward interfaces. Using an EEG seems like trying to identify detailed calculations being performed on a computer using the interference heard on a FM radio when it is placed near it. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [ SPAM ] RE: clinical diagnosis of [a]theism?
|
|
Nick wrote:
"Well, 30 or more tiny fm radios placed at strategic locations around the mother board, might be more like it. No?" Like if a team of two or three aliens came to watch the Earth from orbit, before there was broadcasting. Relatively speaking, that's how many individual things they'd have to understand if 1 person = 1 neuron (putting aside that each person has 10,000 friends/synapses in this analogy) . I'm claiming it would be much more effective to take 30 people up in their spaceship and study them in detail. Perhaps from orbit they could make a good guess at that, e.g. a president, a popular athlete, a celebrity, several randomly selected people of different races, etc. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |