Yippy someone familiar with Antonio Damasio.
Thank you for joining the conversation. I’ll admit I’ve only been introduced to Damasio, but I’m impressed, and I’ve started his “Self Comes to Mind” 2010
He’s written two more since that:
“The Strange Order of Things: Life, Feeling, and the Making of Cultures”, 2017
“Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious”, is coming out in October 2021
@elainegerente, welcome to CFI, I’m looking forward to hearing more from your perspective.
Okay, I’ll put it on my list. (I have seen it referred numerous times.)
Interesting division. Not sure I’ve thought about it from that angle*, but you’re right. So simple, so clear, hidden in plain sight.
(In defense, I don’t spent a lot of time thinking about religion per se, but everyone always seems to be bringing it up. I’m an Evolution, Earth Centrist type of guy myself.)
" @mriana, Don’t you mean “what is god?” " Doesn’t make near a good a title.Actually now that I’m thinking about it, perhaps I should have asked,
Where does “God” come from?
My answer, at least to the “what” question is split in three types.
@didirius many of us would say from the minds of human and that would basically be the end of the conversation as to “where does god come from”.
To me it seems, that the knowlegde what god is could help finding the answer to “Where does “God” come from?”. -- didiThat's usually problem, people claim to know something about whatever their god is, but if you ask a question, the description changes. If a contradiction is found, a new attribute is added on make it work, but that often contradicts something else. I've never heard of a god that can handle justice and be merciful. At some point, hands are thrown and god is mysterious or god is god therefore the questions and logic don't apply.
The Austin Atheist Experience now keeps callers coming back to, “tell us what you believe, and we’ll tell you what we think about it.” Otherwise the conversation with slip this way and that and never get anywhere.
elainegerente said; For Antonio Damasio, belief is a by-product of the conscious mind. It was a homeostatic process with the advantage of generating security amid a flood of perceptions of a lived past and an uncertain future.I agree that belief is a by-product of the conscious mind, an evolutionary process stemming from "fight or flight" and a search for safety.
But it isn’t related to homeostasis which is the subconscious control mechanism that regulates bodily functions that keep us alive.
@lausten Some years ago i had the plesure to drink tea with an old couple from a evangelical free church who had a pretty strong sens of belief in their religion. They explained to me some of their perspective I asked about. What occurred to me was that it’s basically some sort of language to explain the world around them. And to communicate one has to someway translate a little bit and use partially their own terms. - Right now this reminds me of some child not proper understanding something and you’d have to explain it to it in some sketchy way.
But it isn’t related to homeostasis which is the subconscious control mechanism that regulates bodily functions that keep us alive.Seeking isn't subconscious.
Neither is hunger.
Breathing happens subconsciously until something brings it to the conscious, such as a choking incident, or smoke inhalation that demands your immediate attention, which immediately slams every other emotion or drive you were feeling into the background.
Separation anxiety, isn’t subconscious, and definitely a survival instinct, especially for a child.
Why do you single out fight or flight, as though it was always the most important, which implies the other flow from there?
I believe you created a contrived boundary. It sounds like you’re assuming the subconscious is qualitatively separated from the consciousness.
The subconscious supports our conscious - which in fact, I’ve learned is busy trying to arrange incoming information so that it can get buried and processed in the subconscious, leaving our very limited consciousness to deal with more immediate and complicated issues.
@Lausten. The Austin Atheist Experience now keeps callers coming back to, “tell us what you believe, and we’ll tell you what we think about it.”Otherwise the conversation will slip this way and that and never get anywhere.
Our religious beliefs and our understanding of God, flow from within we ourselves and our experiences - NOT from some outside universal something or other.
That “flow from within” is usually linked to a search for meaning. This is a great article, using down to earth language, but referencing a philosopher here and there.
Why do you single out fight or flight, as though it was always the most important, which implies the other flow from there?It always was. The fundamental survival instinct starts here. All subsequent survival mechanisms are selected for effectiveness.
I believe you created a contrived boundary. It sounds like you’re assuming the subconscious is qualitatively separated from the consciousnessThere is a real boundary between the conscious and subconscious brain. That's is why anesthesia only affects the conscious brain and leaves the subconscious homeostatic control section of the brain alone. Else we would die.
This is the function of the anesthesiologist. To administer sufficient anesthetics to render the conscious mind unconscious, but leaving the subconscious brain unaffected. (Hameroff)
Actually the most fundamental survival instinct, from an evolutionary standpoint, was “seeking” only later when things got more complicated, yeah back in the Ediacaran ~ Cambrian Periods, did fight or flight become part of creatures’ repertoire.
Beyond that I think you’re sharing an over simplification based on assumptions and history. There are nuances involved that are just now starting to be understood. Okay, I’m not competent enough to effectively explain. So let me hand it over to an expert, so you can learn from him.
Recent developments in affective neuroscience seem to demand, for the first time since the advent of neuropsychoanalysis, a revision of one of Freud's most fundamental concepts. Join us at this important meeting, to consider whether the neuroscientific evidence that will be presented indicates that the primitive part of the mind which Freud described as the 'id' is intrinsically conscious, and the reality-oriented 'ego' is unconscious -- and that it derives its consciousness from the endogenous id rather than from sensory perception.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7J1FLZUg3A
@lausten That “flow from within” is usually linked to a search for meaning. This is a great article, using down to earth language, but referencing a philosopher here and there.
Instead of reflection, Lao Tzu proposes a deep understanding of the essence of existence, which is mysterious. We, like rivers and trees, are part of “the way,” which is made of everything and makes everything and cannot ever truly be known or spoken of. From this perspective, life isn’t comprehensible, but it is inherently meaningful—whatever position we occupy in society, however little or much we may do.Life matters because we exist within and among living things, as part of an enduring and incomprehensible chain of existence. Sometimes life is brutal, he writes, but meaning is derived from perseverance. The Tao says, “One who persists is a person of purpose.”
Not god. - good.
Here’s another one for the inquiring mind,
Icahn School of MedicineWhy and How Consciousness Arises
Feb 15, 2019At our Feb. 5 Grand Rounds, Mark Solms, PhD, of the University of Cape Town, presented on how the metaphysical experience of consciousness relates to the physical brain—and why psychiatrists should care
Actually the most fundamental survival instinct, from an evolutionary standpoint, was “seeking” only later when things got more complicated, yeah back in the Ediacaran ~ Cambrian Periods, did fight or flight become part of creatures’ repertoire.OK, I agree that the ability to search for food came later. But as far as I understand Solms, interoception, the subconscious control mechanism of the internal bodily functions, is a survival mechanism that came before any consciousness allowed us to understand our interoceptive processes.
Beyond that I think you’re sharing an over simplification based on assumptions and history. There are nuances involved that are just now starting to be understood. Okay, I’m not competent enough to effectively explain. So let me hand it over to an expert, so you can learn from him.I agree, but in my posts detail is not intended. I merely try to point to fundamental concepts. I see a parallel between an unconscious combustion engine as that which allows a car to be driven, without going into detail of the actual stages that allow the engine to work in the first place, and the conscious driver who decides when and where to drive the car..... :)
I’ll leave it to Solms to explain the difference between a two cylinder (paramecium) and a sixteen cylinder (human) engine.
As to the “pleasure” principle. Single celled Paramecium display a marked different (pleasurable) behavior when mating than when hunting.
Its the only time they are joined and stationary. And what comes to mind is a natural “affinity” displayed by many chemicals. This is the foundation for unconscious self-organization of molecules and evolution to more complex unconscious patterns and finally abiogenesis and evolution of conscious biology.
Scientists have described mating-type determination mechanisms in Paramecium Published: 20 February 2021Research
Conjugation (or mating) of ciliates is a unique phenomenon among living beings. They have sex not for reproduction or pleasure — they seek to increase genetic variation.*Scientists from St Petersburg University, together with colleagues from Poland and France, have studied the mating process in five sibling species of the Paramecium aurelia complex. Their findings enabled them to describe genetic mechanisms behind this phenomenon. The research results have been published in the prestigious scientific journal Genome Biology and Evolution.
I wonder how the question changes if we put it this way? Who is Wonka Tonka (Great Spirit)? Who is Krishna? Who is (put any other name for god here)? I think it all depends on what religion/way of life you grew up in as to who or what god is, but the bottom line is all definitions are human creations and as the Tao says the Tao that can be defined isn’t the Tao at all. So however one defines it, it is all just a human definition and isn’t a god at all.
That’s a great exercise Mriana. I love the passage from Catcher in the Rye, where Holden is thinking about the names of god, in other languages and cultures. It’s been a long time, so I can’t find the words I’m looking for. These are close.
@lausten hey, the way that reads, I’m always talking to the Great Spirit. lol Truth be told though, the exercise I came up with isn’t new. It came from the Xian challenge about “what do you have to lose?” Switch the gods in the challenge is where I got the idea from.
It would be impossible to understand the essence of the Creator as we are his creation and the idea of the creation understanding the Creator is the same as a table trying to understand the carpenter. Of course we can learn about Him, pray to Him, and worship Him. But ultimately our mind would fall short of fully comprehending our Creator.