" There's a willingness to keep religion out of public policy, but that's just a vacancy. That's a space that needs to be filled by science and art and beauty and profundity. People want something more out of this short life. They want something more than what they get by following their desires. There's more to life than shopping and checking Instagram.
People in every religious context and none have these experiences of Self Transcendence, ecstasy and awe, which absolutely proves that none of these experiences confirms the provincial tenants of these doctrines.
There has to be a deeper principal there has to be some universal opportunity here that transcends the accidents of culture. That is the missing piece in secularism. That's why its necessary to defend. but it's not enough. We have to then fill that space with creativity, curiosity and love." Sam Harris

https://youtu.be/2gZ4teHsh6c

Harris has become deeply confused about his own views in a desperate attempt to replace religious transcendence with science and art. He is not alone. It is part of a "trend" to somehow find the "sacred" in nature. His dabbling in the Eastern meditative tradition, and its religious overtones, has encouraged his confusion.

___________________________________________________

" There's a willingness to keep religion out of public policy, but that's just a vacancy. That's a space that needs to be filled by science and art and beauty and profundity. People want something more out of this short life. They want something more than what they get by following their desires. There's more to life than shopping and checking Instagram."

COMMENT: In short, Harris is suggesting that if a society can minimize, or more radically eradicate, religion--publicly and privately, it will be left with a void of meaning that human beings need to have filled. That void, according to Harris, can and must be filled by science, art, beauty and profundity. The problem with such a view should be obvious. Neither science, art, beauty or profundity [depth of thought] implies anything transcendent about reality that goes beyond deterministic physical processes supplemented by human psychology. This has nothing to do with religion, which is fundamentally about a reality that transcends science and human psychology; i.e. it is about "God," an immortal soul, and God's ultimate purposes. So, Harris entirely misses the point, demonstrating he has no understanding about the depth of religious experience and commitment.
_____________________________________________

People in every religious context and none have these experiences of Self Transcendence, ecstasy and awe, which absolutely proves that none of these experiences confirms the provincial tenants of these doctrines.

COMMENT: Nonsense. All religious experience centers around a divine "Being" or presence that is the ultimate source of such experiences. The "Self" as a component of such experiences is always associated with some divine plan, insight, or inspiration. There is nothing "provincial" about such experiences. (Harris needs to re-read James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, and numerous other works on the nature of religious experience.)
_____________________________________

There has to be a deeper principal there has to be some universal opportunity here that transcends the accidents of culture. That is the missing piece in secularism. That's why its necessary to defend. but it's not enough. We have to then fill that space with creativity, curiosity and love."

COMMENT: Yes, there is a missing piece in secularism. However, it cannot be replaced with such mundane notions as creativity (art), curiosity (science) and love (psychology). The only ontological commitment that might replace traditional religion is a new kind of openness that allows for the possibility of tapping into a reality that transcends science, art and psychology, in favor of a worldview that acknowledges the exceptional, transcendent, nature of life, mind, and human values. However, once you accept even that level of transcendence, you are sacrificing a purely scientific worldview and putting one foot in the door of "religion."

Harris cannot have it both ways: He cannot have both religion and secularism; no matter how hard he tries to spin it.

I agree with HB and appreciate his viewpoints and well thought out wisdom in all his posts, Secularism doesn't fill the need of the human soul. One of the best ways to learn what's wrong with today is to look at how we got here, study the past.

From a historical perspective we can see this truth (failures of secularism) illustrated in the lived experience of those who were behind the iron curtain. Eastern Europeans had the experience of replacing the old established ways for a new world order, a system that celebrated the strength of men, Men's achievements, Men's superior intellect, they threw off the chains of religion for a new kind of chain. One that celebrated the collective, That demanded men to bend to new all powerful leaders, the communist leaders pasted themselves everywhere as the new intellects with authority, christian religiosity plummeted for this new world order. All sold on the notion that it was politically correct, and the cone-head Russians (big brother) were superior than the silly Americans (who kept their religion).

The result was 40 years of stagnation, Europe turned to the bottle, they became lazy, indolent, bored, and tired. Poverty, protests, and disharmony eventually overtook the people. They waited for secularism to give them the handouts. Finally they tore down the wall (secularism) and brought back the superior cultural values of Western ideas (among those celebration religion).

Another way to look at Religion and monarchy is that it has produced the finest works of art that we have. When the progressive (secularist) Bohemians modernists took over the intellectual establishments. They turned their backs on Religion and what is attractive and experimented with the ugly. Suddenly there wasn't absolute truth in beauty, beauty was put aside for the provocative, and profane, We can all see the results in modern architecture, especially communist era architecture of such as European public housing that went up everywhere.

Western Europe and Canada are basically secular societies now. They seem to be doing ok. You might want to update your thesis.

I live in largely secular Australia, which is culturally very similar to Canada. We've never been as religious as the US, and are continuing to abandon established churches. Those who do continue with churches are in larger Pentecostal churches which favour prosperity gospel, good music etc.

I'm not sure how many believe in a God, and how many pray, but there certainly aren't many for whom religion is a dominant life force.

I think we are pretty well off discarding religious trappings, but I do think younger generations will miss out on the social benefits of attending church groups. As is often described on this site, church groups used to provide a large range of useful social activities and structures, which can be quite helpful to young people, even if they don't buy into the actual religion.

I gained a lot of my social development from attending youth groups in my Protestant church as a teen, even while being confused about the religion itself. I tried hard but eventually admitted to myself that I didn't believe any more, and stopped going. That didn't directly cost me any friends, but I left some behind as I moved on to a different phase of my life.

These days, kids do not mix very much outside of school, there seems to be less organised sport and other community action, and without church as well, they will become more isolated and wedded to their screens, which, on balance, can't be great.

I very much like a couple of things about this post.

You describe religion in the West as comprising established old faiths that have lost their magic, as it were, and new faiths that are largely passionate prosperity cults. This is a brutal categorization and probably wrong around the edges, but I think an enlightening approximation that reveals a lot of things. Implicit in it as well is the notion that one of the few emotionally powerful forces in modern life is greed. Once again we see the convergence on the one hand of personal interest with political and religious ideologies on the other.

Second, you identify both the social fragility of modern society and the value in that framework of traditional religions. The focus on young people seems particularly apposite.

Yes we are on the same page LW. One reason I am on this site, is because it so interesting to see how a little cultish religion mirrors the changes that are going on throughout society, politics and religion generally.

Norms change so quickly, and we forget the past almost immediately. My kids don't even think about religion, other than as a sociological construct. We have to find other ways of teaching values and behaviours and ways of looking at the world and being part of a supportive community.

I agree with HB and appreciate his viewpoints and well thought out wisdom in all his posts, Secularism doesn't fill the need of the human soul. One of the best ways to learn what's wrong with today is to look at how we got here, study the past.

COMMENT: First, thank you for the compliment. Second, I think a distinction needs to be made between the merits of an open, free, and secular *society,* on the one hand; and how, on the other hand, individuals respond to life by embracing a transcendent-friendly *personal* worldview, whether religious or otherwise. As an atheist, I insist upon a secular society. I do not want religion or even "the transcendent" in any way, space or form in our secular institutions. For me it is not an institutional, governmental, issue, but a personal one.

On that note, I also readily admit that I struggle to make rational sense out of an expanded, transcendental view of "the big picture" without allowing either flights of fantasy or hard science to dominant and dictate my worldview.
____________________________________________

From a historical perspective we can see this truth (failures of secularism) illustrated in the lived experience of those who were behind the iron curtain. . . .

COMMENT: I am not comfortable with your historical comparison. As has been pointed out many times on the Board, historically and currently there are many successful, open, democratic, secular societies; while there are many closed, religion-dominated non-secular societies that are abhorrent with respect to human rights and freedom. Moreover, it is incorrect to make this a simplistic bilateral choice. I think it is a balance, where rigidity in thinking--whatever one's worldview--is displaced by open, but rational, thinking. One does not need to be a materialist scientist to think deeply and rationally about ultimate reality, and without feeling the need to claim certainty, or the need to impose one's beliefs on others.

“Harris cannot have it both ways: He cannot have both religion and secularism; no matter how hard he tries to spin it.”

It’s a shotgun wedding, but it’s interesting to follow his evolution of thought. He’s a meditation-promoting Atheist, which is an odd combination because meditation is about connecting with a transcendent divine. I tried Atheism and failed. I couldn’t square its notions with my life experience. Critical thinking doesn’t obliterate all religion, just bad religion.

Secularism rests on a foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics but likes to pretend that it doesn’t. Maybe that’s what Sam is getting at. Religion taps into something fundamental, something elusive to science. I agree that such a situation should not be. The secular world of science is itself a cult that perpetuates a system of brainwashing called education. Pink Floyd had a song about that.

He’s a meditation-promoting Atheist, which is an odd combination because meditation is about connecting with a transcendent divine. I tried Atheism and failed. I couldn’t square its notions with my life experience. Critical thinking doesn’t obliterate all religion, just bad religion.

COMMENT: I myself am a meditation-practicing atheist, and religion or God has nothing to do with it. Mediation is not only relaxing, it is a perspective enhancing window into one's inner self, whatever that self might be. It is precisely what I advocate here on the Board, transcendence with respect to humanism, without religious dogma.
_______________________________________

Secularism rests on a foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics but likes to pretend that it doesn’t. Maybe that’s what Sam is getting at. Religion taps into something fundamental, something elusive to science. I agree that such a situation should not be. The secular world of science is itself a cult that perpetuates a system of brainwashing called education. Pink Floyd had a song about that.

COMMENT: Come on. "The secular world of science is a cult?" Education is "a system of brainwashing?" Don't you think this is a bit strong? There is no doubt that science generally promotes materialist explanations; often sweeps unfavorable data under the rug; and is hard on religion and the "paranormal." But speaking for myself, an extensive scientific education is precisely what made me realize its profound limitations. I dare say that many if not most historical and current scientists feel the same way, the popular materialist and skeptical literature notwithstanding. In addition, let's be honest, within its limitations science has propound explanatory power.

> COMMENT: I myself am a meditation-practicing
> atheist, and religion or God has nothing to do
> with it.

And I am a meditation-practicing agnostic who agrees that religion and God have nothing to do with it. That point needs to be underscored. One can appreciate the Iliad without believing in Zeus; one can profit from the Bible without believing in a God who orders the murder of entire races; and it is entirely possible to meditate without seeking enlightenment.

Well said Lot's Wife. I am a meditating atheist. I even pray- so deal with that haha

Perhaps you've seen magazines promoting "Mindlessness" on the impulse-rack at Holistic Foods. There are various subgroups of "Mindlessness. Mine is "Transcendental Vegetation," by which I become One with the Eternal Turnip.

Holistic Foods must be a Canadian chain.

In any case I fear, "Bubbha," that Aaron is not as familiar with mindlessness as you are.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2019 02:14AM by Lot's Wife.

You say you pray. He says he feels gratitude.
If you pray, whom do you pray to? How do you expect, or hope, that "whom" to respond?

I told my relation that to be grateful, there has to be some (B?)eing as the source of what he's grateful for, so (W)hom or (W)hat is he grateful to? I have certain things like family and financial security, and I believe that God is involved in that, so I'm grateful. My relation stumbled around, but couldn't explain why he should be grateful. I interpret his feelings as appreciation, not gratitude.

I think you might be limiting what being grateful is for your relation.

I'm grateful that I got to exist because it seems so remarkable that time and contingency made it possible.

I don't see a distinction between "appreciating" a source called a god or being "grateful" to exist with no (S)ource implied.

Believers don't get to own the word grateful in this context, IMO.

Thank you. Now I can enjoy Thanksgiving! :)

I'm grateful that I got to exist because it seems so remarkable that time and contingency made it possible.

COMMENT: I am having trouble with being "grateful" for a contingency. Lucky, yes; Relieved, yes; Fortunate, yes. But "grateful" seems to imply a more personal touch directed to the actions of an individual person or Being.

_________________________________________________

I don't see a distinction between "appreciating" a source called a god or being "grateful" to exist with no (S)ource implied.

COMMENT: Surely this is not right. If someone does you a favor, for example, being grateful for that contingent event in the abstract is not the same as being grateful for the deliberate actions taken by another person for your intended benefit. Maybe we need another word, but "grateful" seems to me to imply the latter.
___________________________________________________

Believers don't get to own the word grateful in this context, IMO.

COMMENT: Ah yes. Now they are taking ownership of "grateful." Tomorrow they will take ownership of "God." Where will it end!

I disagree.

I'm grateful certain contingences happened during the course of evolution. I'm grateful I got to exist and not have a horrible life like so many creatures in nature.

Use of the word from dictionaries include examples such as "grateful to be alive after the earthquake" or "enjoying a grateful breeze." It can mean thankful or appreciative. I feel it is appropriate the way I used it.

I don't see any point arguing or splitting hairs over definitions.

I am grateful for you response. :)

I am not grateful for semantic appropriation.

When I pray it is not to anyone or anything in particular, it is just identifying what is going on internally and expressing it to the universe. I don't expect any type of magical outcome, it just keeps me centered and focused.

Prayer is often a form of meditation. As with the word gratitude, or grateful, it is a term that is broader than the conventional usage.

"The secular world of science is a cult?" Education is "a system of brainwashing?" Don't you think this is a bit strong?

Maybe it’s a broad brush. But consider Galileo trying to demonstrate the heliocentric model. His highly educated critics refused to look through his telescope. Has human nature changed? If you try the same kind of exercise today you get the same result. Maybe not with you, but you’re a freak.

Maybe politics invading science is what corrupts it. Those fields that haven’t been invaded have fewer mind walls.

secularism ?

tell us about the holes in sectarianism.

I think they have a loophole.

¿ wut is this thred about? ~

thx ~

Some holes are useful. Others are just a waste of space.

You pray that golf holes are on your good list!

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " proves that none of
> these experiences confirms the provincial tenants
> of these doctrines.
> There has to be a deeper principal


Well, the problem is that the provincial tenants never pay their rent when it is due, so why should they expect some kind of transcendent experience? You get what you pay for.

When I was in elementary school, the head of our school fell into an excavation pit that had been made for some kind of pipe installation project. That was the first time I saw a deeper principal.

At the end of the day, the problem is that there either is an actual transcendent reality or there is not. If there is not, then every attempt at creating a substitute will be vulnerable to deconstruction. Because it's make-believe and fantasy and self-delusion.

Some members of the intellectual class frequently argue in favor of creating a new set of noble lies or pious fictions to replace the religions that have gone far past their "best by" dates and no longer have the fizz and pop that they once had. It's like a kind of nostalgia for a simpler time. "Remember when we could say 'because God says so' and everyone would believe us? I miss those days."

Well, the problem is that the provincial tenants never pay their rent when it is due, so why should they expect some kind of transcendent experience? You get what you pay for.

COMMENT: Atheists do not expect to have transcendent experiences, and are skeptical about claims of such experiences. That said, I think you are right in concluding that one's worldview largely dictates the nature of the experiences they will have. And if one's mind is closed about such experiences, their worldview will be unduly narrow. (IMHO)
___________________________________________

When I was in elementary school, the head of our school fell into an excavation pit that had been made for some kind of pipe installation project. That was the first time I saw a deeper principal.

COMMENT: A "deeper principal" was discovered in an "excavation pit." Makes sense to me.
________________________________________

At the end of the day, the problem is that there either is an actual transcendent reality or there is not. If there is not, then every attempt at creating a substitute will be vulnerable to deconstruction. Because it's make-believe and fantasy and self-delusion.

COMMENT: Well, there *is* a transcendent reality! That fact follows from the science itself. (There is a reality that 'transcends' science.) The question is what the nature of that reality is, and whether human beings have access to it by "mystical" or other types of spiritual experiences.
__________________________________________

Some members of the intellectual class frequently argue in favor of creating a new set of noble lies or pious fictions to replace the religions that have gone far past their "best by" dates and no longer have the fizz and pop that they once had.

COMMENT: What lies? What fictions? As Harris suggests, the "intellectual class" *does* want to experience love, beauty, awe of nature, etc. They genuinely *do* have and appreciate these emotions, which in themselves are real and not lies or fictions. The error is in thinking that such experiences capture the essence of the transcendent spiritual experiences claimed by the religious, which they most certainly do not!
_________________________________________

It's like a kind of nostalgia for a simpler time. "Remember when we could say 'because God says so' and everyone would believe us? I miss those days."

COMMENT: Now you are scaring me. You want to go back to a time when someone could just invoke God and people would blindly believe and act? No thanks.

THE JOKE--------------------->

Henry Bemis






(Hint: Apartments have tenants. Religions have tenets).

+10000 Would have only been 1000 except the "deeper principle" pushed it way over the top. Best joke of the week.


I will offer the dictionary version here of Self Transcendence since Henry claims that I, as an atheist " do not expect to have transcendent experiences, and are skeptical about claims of such experiences." Oh, so wrong.

Self Transcendence: "The overcoming of the limits of the individual self and its desires in spiritual contemplation and realization. 'The logic of self-transcendence is based on humility, and respect for the mystery we did not create." I can decide if this is true for me all by myself thank you.

I am an atheist and I have transcendent experiences all the time and I find offense in someone telling me I am uncapable of them. I found religion clouds your mind so one may be unable to recognize them unless they are imprinted on toast. The well has been poisoned. Also religion limits one's ability to define terms except as they relate to religion. Spirituality comes from within and we are all capable.

If you define spirituality as only something that has to do with some God man supposes exists, then you are limiting yourself severely.

Also, someone please define "deep" as one man's deep is another man's shallow. What is deep for some doesn't even get my ankles wet. And vice versa. Tired of vague terms.

I will offer the dictionary version here of Self Transcendence since Henry claims that I, as an atheist " do not expect to have transcendent experiences, and are skeptical about claims of such experiences." Oh, so wrong.

COMMENT: You're absolutely right! I did not mean to say that transcendental experiences cannot be experienced by atheists. The atheists I had in mind in that comment are the many atheists that deny that there are such experiences, and equate such experiences to nothing but emotion. Obviously that is not all atheists. I would also point out that your (and my) brand of "open" atheism must accept a concept of the self that goes beyond biology because there is nothing in biology that accommodates or explains a "transcendent self."
_____________________________________________

Self Transcendence: "The overcoming of the limits of the individual self and its desires in spiritual contemplation and realization. 'The logic of self-transcendence is based on humility, and respect for the mystery we did not create." I can decide if this is true for me all by myself thank you.

COMMENT: I have no problem with this characterization. Note, however that "self transcendence" implies a transcendent self, and, as noted above, this view is in stark contradiction to scientific materialism. (The brand of atheism I find objectionable.)
_______________________________________________

I am an atheist and I have transcendent experiences all the time and I find offense in someone telling me I am uncapable of them. I found religion clouds your mind so one may be unable to recognize them unless they are imprinted on toast. The well has been poisoned. Also religion limits one's ability to define terms except as they relate to religion. Spirituality comes from within and we are all capable.

COMMENT: Again, I agree, except that I would not blanketly say that religion cannot be a source for such experiences. As you say, it is individually based.
_________________________________________________

If you define spirituality as only something that has to do with some God man supposes exists, then you are limiting yourself severely.

COMMENT: Again, I agree fully.
________________________________________________

Also, someone please define "deep" as one man's deep is another man's shallow. What is deep for some doesn't even get my ankles wet. And vice versa. Tired of vague terms.

COMMENT: Can't help you there.

My definition of "deep" usually has something to do with scars--wounds having carved deep channels to house deep understanding, even wisdom.

Although I do like what the term "deep do-do" refers to. :)

Nietzsche was wrong. A make-believe thing can not be dead. Death means that it once lived.

Nietzsche was right if we understand what he was saying.

He was an atheist but he recognized God as an important social construct that organized societies, legitimized governments, and guided art. But when he was writing in the late 19th century, he looked around and saw that the Enlightenment had basically killed God. People still went through the motions, but real motivating faith was gone. God had been relegated to a style of decor in upper-class salons and the prejudices of the poor and unimaginative.

Nietszche didn't think that a bad thing since he despised the Christianity in which he had been raised. What was needed was an Ubermensch like a Jesus (as opposed to a Paul and Paul's Christianity), a Buddha, or a metaphorically a Zarathustra, someone who could forge a new morality and a new faith. Nietzsche wanted the new superman to present an atheistic vision, a "religion" that elevated humanistic values, art, and philosophic endeavor without racism and the herd mentality he associated with Christianity.

What worried him most was that the dead God would not be replaced with the sort of new religion he espoused and that, humans being too eager to find and follow a shepherd, a new "slave morality" would arise. As he explicitly said, the new gods--the ones he feared--looked like they would arise in Germany and Russia and would encorporate not a higher morality but humanity's barbaric herd mentality.

That has to be one of the greatest "prophesies" to come forth from any source at any time in history. It shows what a brilliant mind with profound understanding of human nature and society is capable of intuiting.

Nietzsche was God and now he is dead.

glasses from his eyes and allowed him to see the world as it really was.

People often ask why he was so bitter.

He was bitter because there were too many consonants in his name and there was no good explanation for the surplus.

As a child, he would introduce himself, saying, "I am Nietzche" (ich bin Nietzsche) and people would look at him and say "gesundheit!" That's when he realized that everything was based on a big misunderstanding.

Forgive me if I'm reading seriousness into a jocular post, but Nietzsche's childhood was indeed difficult. He was effectively reared by some very conservative small-minded Christian women for whom status and appearance was everything. This oppressive, anti-intellectual milieu would have been difficult for any energetic child let alone one of such gifts.

So you are right to state that his painful childhood contributed to his later objectivity. He observed the repressive elements of German Protestantism for many years before being in a position to comment on it.

your excellent comments on Nietzche are much appreciated.

I'm just in one of those moods today. I think recalling the horror I felt when watching the Man's Search for Happiness film when I was a kid (had me obsessed and traumatized about death for months for some reason) triggered my jocularity coping mechanism. ;o)

I love your humor, Wally.

Me too. Like my dementia suffering father says thinking it is Spanish - Das ist gut.

https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/das%20ist%20gut

That is all the Spanish he remembers - that is good in German. Sometimes one needs laughter and silliness to deal.

This thread reminded me of Charles Townes.

Charles Townes was a Nobel Prize winning physicist, highly respected by his peers for decades. He died in 2015 at the age of 99. He was also a firm and unapologetic Christian in a very traditional sense. Here is some background information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Townes

In the closing paragraph of his 1995 memoir, Making Waves, Townes stated:

"I've given you a sense of the course of my career -- some key decisions, directions, and perhaps happy failures. You may well ask, "Just where does God come into this?" Perhaps my account may give some answer but to me that's almost a pointless question. If you believe in God at all, there is no particular "where;" He's always here--everywhere. He's in all of these things. To me God is personal, yet omnipresent-- a great source of strength, Who has made an enormous difference to me. When my atheistic friend asks, "What has he done for you?" What can I say? I look at what's happened to me, and think that all of those things are what He's done. Acceptance of His role is perhaps a bit analogous to our feelings about some form of free will. Free will is not logical or possible in terms of our present understanding of science. Yet we have an almost irrepressible sense that we act with free will and would probably be quite different without this sense. We can hope our presently limited understanding will improve and some day clarify these instinctive feelings. And so while one can wonder whether such a figure as God can in fact exist, we may sense him strongly-- both at the moment and in reflecting on the events of a lifetime."

I have read Townes book, twice, which goes into great detail about this views on science and religion. I highly recommend it to both believers and non-believers. When I read the chapters on religion critically,including the above statement, I find it easy to dismiss. But, like all such accounts, there is something here that is deeply personal and that "transcends" such criticism. One can doubt, as I do, that Townes tapped into a personal, transcendent God; but he seems to have tapped into something that at least for him was intensely meaningful. It clearly is NOT ignorance, wishful thinking, or delusion, as some would have it.

Many of us experienced this same transcendent reality when we were Mormons, but when we learned we had been deceived we began to question all such feelings as our worldview pendulums swung decidedly toward the "firmer foundation" of science and skepticism. Maybe something important was lost in this transition that needs to be reconsidered; whatever that "something" might be.

Had a lot I wanted to say on this thread but lost time writing something else. So, just a note:

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Many of us experienced this same transcendent
> reality when we were Mormons, but when we learned
> we had been deceived we began to question all such
> feelings as our worldview pendulums swung
> decidedly toward the "firmer foundation" of
> science and skepticism. Maybe something important
> was lost in this transition that needs to be
> reconsidered; whatever that "something" might be.

It seems that even those who did not experience "this same transcendent reality" while mormon also swung to the "firmer foundation." My guess is that many who did have such an experience as mormons are not on RfM and may have sought out and found other religious/spiritual traditions.


On another note, but not unrelated, ICYMI:

http://wise.nautil.us/feature/477/your-brain-is-on-the-brink-of-chaos

Snippet:

"While hundreds of millions of dollars are being funneled into building the connectome—a neuron-by-neuron map of the brain—scientists like Eve Marder have argued that, due to the complexity of these circuits, a structural map alone will not get us very far. Functional connections can flicker in and out of existence in milliseconds. Individual neurons appear to change their tuning properties over time, and thus may not be “byte-addressable”—that is, stably represent some piece of information—but instead operate within a dynamic dictionary that constantly shifts to make room for new meaning."

That article goes directly to possible explanations for how the OP's (and Harris's) point happens, and to your thoughts about free will.

It appears that the "firmer foundation" of neuroscience etc is receiving the good and proper shake-up it has long needed. I'm seeing more and more articles like the one above, not necessarily in specifics but in general tendency and direction, all to the good.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Human

Chaos as an agent of free will is an interesting angle. Chaotic attractors in EEG data have been used to diagnose encephalopathy, so this is a field of study.

It could mean free will is real, but not necessarily. Suppose our reality is a projection from higher dimensions. In that case you can’t guarantee the source of what we see as randomness is itself random. In the words of an overused cliché, everything happens for a reason.

I think there’s more willingness these days to stray from scientific orthodoxy because the decline of religion invites competing ideologies onto turf that was once exclusive to religion. The tiger is losing its teeth so it’s safe to pet the kitty.

Physical materialism is wearing thin for those who take paranormal research seriously. Should it be taken seriously? I could be wrong, but I think all reality should be taken seriously. Most people can’t do that, which forces me to concede that religion really does have a place in the world.

Chaos as an agent of free will is an interesting angle. Chaotic attractors in EEG data have been used to diagnose encephalopathy, so this is a field of study.

COMMENT: Chaos cannot explain free will. Chaotic systems are still entirely deterministic. Moreover, the organized complexity that emerges from them must still be ultimately grounded in the underlying components of the chaotic system, however complex and chaotic, just not in a reductionist way.
______________________________________________

It could mean free will is real, but not necessarily. Suppose our reality is a projection from higher dimensions. In that case you can’t guarantee the source of what we see as randomness is itself random. In the words of an overused cliché, everything happens for a reason.

COMMENT: Again, chaos and complexity theory are NOT compatible with free will. Even if you suppose that "our reality is a projection from higher dimensions" you are still describing a deterministic system--unless the higher reality also includes some higher level agency that exercises free will. There is a distinction between "happening for a reason" as implying a causal physical explanation (known or unknown), and "happening for a reason" as implying some agent causation, regardless of how many dimensions we are talking about.
_________________________________________

I think there’s more willingness these days to stray from scientific orthodoxy because the decline of religion invites competing ideologies onto turf that was once exclusive to religion. The tiger is losing its teeth so it’s safe to pet the kitty.

COMMENT: Well, what I think is happening is that as science becomes more theoretically sophisticated, paradoxes associated with scientific orthodoxy become more troublesome. (For example, the ontological issues associated with quantum non-locality and wave-particle duality.) I do not think this is much to do with any concern or interest science of science to encompass or respond to religious ideas. Metaphysics is forced upon it by its own verifiably grounded theories!
__________________________________________

Physical materialism is wearing thin for those who take paranormal research seriously. Should it be taken seriously? I could be wrong, but I think all reality should be taken seriously. Most people can’t do that, which forces me to concede that religion really does have a place in the world.

COMMENT: I fully agree that paranormal phenomenon should be taken seriously; particularly in a scientific climate that is steeped in metaphysics. Yet, scientific orthodoxy continues to resist such expansion. But you need to be careful here. Religion may now have a new "foot-in-the-door" as a source for speculations about reality, but I for one do not want such speculations to run so wild that all connection to human reason and rationality becomes mute. In short, we still want to respect science, insist upon some standard of evidence, and avoid post-modernism at all costs. (i.e. the idea that truth itself is subjective.)

Thanks for this.

Cognitive neuroscience is indeed reluctantly moving away from the idea of computation as a complete and final explanation of human cognition--whether it is the traditional symbolic systems of AI or modern connectionism. Remarkably, both accounts run into profound difficulties associated with the idea of "representation" (how information from the environment is represented and manipulated in the brain) and "central processing." (Getting rid of the homunculus that "puts it all together.") I realize I am getting a little deep here, but maybe if there is interest we can sort this out in another thread. It is all highly relevant to the ideas of "soul" "the self" and human values. (And, of course, free will!)

In any event, incorporating additional ideas such as chaos theory and complexity theory demonstrates in part the failure of traditional computational neuroscience to provide an adequate explanation for not only consciousness itself, but human cognition generally; i.e. everything that humans beings can do cognitively; both unconsciously and consciously.

Notice, however, that even when incorporating these speculative ideas that are on the fringe of materialism, Crick's hypothesis is stridently adhered to; i.e. its still "all in the brain." Personally, I have come to seriously doubt this hypothesis because neither traditional computational neuroscience, coupled with "chaos theory" and/or "complexity theory" can explain human cognition in my view. Considering all forms of normal human cognition, coupled with credible accounts of paranormal cognition, something more is needed. (IMHO) I do not necessary mean a religious soul, but some other aspect of reality that grounds consciousness and human cognition.

I am reminded of one of my own personal motivations for this expanded view: Savant syndrome. When one considers accounts such as those included in Darold Treffert's book, Islands of Genius, one wonders how such savants seem to "know" things that they did not learn, not to mention a memory capacity that is encyclopedic; far removed from modern neurological and psychological theories of memory. Treffert postulates "genetic memory" as an explanation, which I find rather desperate and absurd.

All the best to you and your family this holiday weekend!

I read an article not long ago about memory and how "they" don't really know how or where it is stored or even if it is stored. I see the whole thing with the brain and with the essence of who we really are as science knowing only the tip of an iceberg's worth of information--at best. And even the known tip of the iceberg has a lot of seal and polar bear excrement all over it and discoloring from acid rain.

I am always fascinated by the fact that all information is in the air. Seems to be so if you can use your iPhone to instantly access any desired information from where to buy pizza to what were Gandhi's last words or what happened in Myanmar today, and then call anywhere in the world that you want to and exchange conversation. If this is all so instant, doesn't that mean all the connections and information is everywhere in the atmosphere at all times--even careening through our bodies? Why do we need to store anything? Perhaps our brains just access what is there in the air like a cerebral buffet?


Well, that's my "tip of the iceberg" for today. :)

I am always fascinated by the fact that all information is in the air. Seems to be so if you can use your iPhone to instantly access any desired information from where to buy pizza to what were Gandhi's last words or what happened in Myanmar today, and then call anywhere in the world that you want to and exchange conversation. If this is all so instant, doesn't that mean all the connections and information is everywhere in the atmosphere at all times--even careening through our bodies?

COMMENT: The electro-magnetic field provides the background for our electronic communications. But the "information" does not lie dormant in the field itself. Such information arises from signals that are propagated through this field in the form of highly complex electromagnetic waves. In short, there must be a transmitter and a receiver that generates and receives such signals. Moreover, for such signals to have meaning they must encode or represent a symbolic language, and there must be intelligent agents to transmit and received them.

So, it is not the case that "information is everywhere in the atmosphere." The field is everywhere, of course, and the information is created by human beings, encoded in electromagnetic waves, and propagated by a transmitter (e.g. some iPhone) to a receiver ( e.g. your iPhone). Of course, it is not a direct communication because there are satellite stops and starts along the way as part of a communication system.
____________________________________________

Why do we need to store anything? Perhaps our brains just access what is there in the air like a cerebral buffet?

COMMENT: Well, this raises ESP issues. But, on its face a brain is clearly a computational physical system involving the complex firing of neurons with very clear functional correlations. There are no apparent "receivers" or "transmitters" in the brain that pick-up electromagnetic waves transmitted through space. But, modern science is built upon so-called "quantum field theory" that postulates any number of fields, all of which are arguably capable of carrying information. Perhaps ESP is supported by some other field that carries information from one conscious entity to another. Moreover, perhaps consciousness itself is a field that stores such information. These ideas are not knew and, of course, highly speculative. You can see that such explanations would be attractive to people who believe in ESP-type phenomena, and why they would be dismissed as nonsense by those who reject such phenomena.

A quote from a review of a book called Out of" My Head: On the Trail of Consciousness" by Tim Parks:

"Parks seems to object most to science's preferred metaphors, which he argues overstep what we know. Why imply that the brain is a computer? Why talk about it 'processing information?' You would never get a biologist talking about cells in the liver computing things.

"We might, as Parks suspects, be operating under the wrong metaphor when we think of how we take in (and create) the world. But operating under a different one most likely wouldn't change what we do all day, every day. The wrong metaphor isn't going to kill anyone, and the right one is not going to save any lives. This is at least one thing that accounts for the salary discrepancies between most people who majored in English and neuroscientists."


Goodness knows I love my metaphors, but this makes a lot of sense to me and less likely to worry about it much. Still, the human need to understand is of value. Or is it? If we finally understand consciousness, how long before we tamper with it? Cue the eerie music.

"Parks seems to object most to science's preferred metaphors, which he argues overstep what we know. Why imply that the brain is a computer? Why talk about it 'processing information?' You would never get a biologist talking about cells in the liver computing things.

COMMENT: I think most neuroscientists (and biologists) are perfectly O.K. with talking about "computing" brains as well as "computing" liver cells, without necessarily adopting the metaphor of the brain or liver cell as a "computer." A computer implies symbolic code manipulation system, whereas a computational process does not. Thus, "computation" is a broad enough term to encompass biological processes that involve repeating algorithmic-like processes that service some biological function. Consider the genetic "code." There is no literal code in the genetic code, only biochemical processes that "compute" protein structures in a systematic way for functional purposes.
__________________________________________

"We might, as Parks suspects, be operating under the wrong metaphor when we think of how we take in (and create) the world. But operating under a different one most likely wouldn't change what we do all day, every day. The wrong metaphor isn't going to kill anyone, and the right one is not going to save any lives. This is at least one thing that accounts for the salary discrepancies between most people who majored in English and neuroscientists."

COMMENT: Speaking for myself, I am not that interested in metaphors. After all, metaphors are not explanations! I am interested in the mechanisms themselves; including whatever mechanisms underlie consciousness and human (and animal) cognition. Some of these mechanisms are purely clearly physical, whereas others appear (to me) to require a highly level of understanding.
_______________________________________

Goodness knows I love my metaphors, but this makes a lot of sense to me and less likely to worry about it much. Still, the human need to understand is of value. Or is it? If we finally understand consciousness, how long before we tamper with it? Cue the eerie music.

COMMENT: Well, that's a great question and highly relevant to religious faith and access to transcendent reality. Suppose we somehow understood all of reality, and could manipulate it freely (within its inherent constraints) for whatever purposes a human being might deem desirable. It *does* seem to me that something is lost when there is no longer anything mysterious to contemplate; not to mention the dangers of the uncertainty imposed by unrestrained human free will. (Enter the theme for the Twilight Zone!)

"It is precisely the small differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of hostility between them." Freud. Quoted for no reason whatsoever.

Good to know, though.

“Goodness knows I love my metaphors, but this makes a lot of sense to me and less likely to worry about it much. Still, the human need to understand is of value. Or is it? If we finally understand consciousness, how long before we tamper with it? Cue the eerie music.”

Physiology metaphors always seem to follow the prevailing technologies. It was computers for a long time, now it’s quantum computers. Way back in the day it was magic. Which story is more accurate if our ability to comprehend existence is just a step above that of a capuchin monkey?

What has improved is access to the stories. That and a vast underground of methods that tamper with consciousness.

Baby animals are born knowing how to survive. Their knowledge is not acquired from experience unless you count previous lives as experience or go with something like morphic resonance. The knowledge is more akin to a library, or Google with instinctive search terms.

Baby humans don’t have this access to the Akash. They have to learn over many years. Could this be the result of “the fall”? If so, what was “the fall”? The Genesis story can hardly be historically accurate, but it might not be too far off the mark in its core message. Personally I think “the fall” can be somewhat reversed in-utero but it’s weird science. How do you test for enlightenment in a baby?

I suspect all of our deeds, good and bad, are written on our Akash and readily readable by pretty much anyone not hampered by “the veil” and potentially by technology once we actually do understand consciousness. Today you at least have privacy in your thoughts. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Interesting thoughts all around, in this thread generally and at the end here from baby- and d&d and Henry.

Henry, I hear you on the fascination for the various forms the savant syndrome takes, and I add to that the work on brain plasticity (from not only Eve Marder, mentioned in the article). We are still a long way from understanding the brain, let alone consciousness. And I suspect the 100s of millions spent mapping a connectome will result in as much disappointment as the genetic map that Bill Gates et. al. mapped out. But there will be useful results, just not of the glory and grandeur expected and propagated beforehand.

Finally, a note about expectations: I also notice that even in speculation "it's all in the brain" is the overwhelming presumption; but I also note that the brain, and to a lesser extent the nervous system, is the proper study on neuroscience. I understand the presumption on their part, but I don't understand why it is so readily accepted on the layperson's part. Neuroscience hasn't even come remotely close to demonstrating their presumption.

In any event, onward we go, hundreds of millions of dollars later...

Post-holiday greetings!

Henry, I hear you on the fascination for the various forms the savant syndrome takes, and I add to that the work on brain plasticity (from not only Eve Marder, mentioned in the article). We are still a long way from understanding the brain, let alone consciousness. And I suspect the 100s of millions spent mapping a connectome will result in as much disappointment as the genetic map that Bill Gates et. al. mapped out. But there will be useful results, just not of the glory and grandeur expected and propagated beforehand.

COMMENT: I recently read an article about the new technique of Brain Computer Interface (BCI), which is sort of the new thing in applied neuroscience. In a nutshell, a subject can be equipped with EEG electrodes connected to a computer. The computer is programmed to take the EEG results as generated from various simple thoughts of the subject and encode them into printed word-commands. The idea is that the mind can now be "read" through neural imaging on a very basic level. Of course, if you take this to the extreme, in principle every thought can be identified with some brain activity such that if scanned and interpreted all thoughts can, in principle, be read-off; assuming the computer was properly programmed to simulate the brain of the subject. This is what all this implies.

Now, when reading about all of this rather impressive technology, one is indeed struck by the fact of mind-brain correlation, which is the point. What you are not told is that such imaging techniques are extremely gross in scale, nowhere near the complexity of the human brain. Thus, it is not surprising that this technique can work in a very general way, with simple thoughts converted to computer code. But the "in principle" conclusion noted above (and assumed as part of Crick's astonishing hypothesis) breaks down completely when one realizes that human thought is non-digital and largely non-computational, and the brain is a highly nuanced neural network where complex thoughts are not represented as a one-to-one correspondence with brain activity. This fact makes "mind-reading" virtually impossible without direct access to thoughts and their interpretation in real time. (Science fiction)

Also, there is always one other component that is never addressed. Clearly what is happening here is that the mind is controlling the brain by dictating the brain response to the thought; i.e. by thinking the thought, the subject is dictating a brain response that can be read-off by the computer program. So, I ask, isn't this a fundamental example of mental causation in its purest form? So, where does the volitional thought come from that starts this whole process? (Embarrassing!) If it is just the brain, why not have the computer read-off the pre-thought deterministic neurological cause (action potential) of the thought, eliminating the middle-man (the Self, the Mind, the conscious agent)?
___________________________________

Finally, a note about expectations: I also notice that even in speculation "it's all in the brain" is the overwhelming presumption; but I also note that the brain, and to a lesser extent the nervous system, is the proper study on neuroscience.

COMMENT: Remember, we are not talking about just neuroscience; i.e. the science of the brain or nervous system. We are talking about *cognitive neuroscience*; i.e. how the brain brings about all of the capacities of human cognition, including behavior, complex thought, rationality, and creativity. That creates a responsibility to honestly consider the mind-brain correlation, including mental causation. So, it is never *just* about the brain. Moreover, cognitive psychology encompasses mind-mind correlations; e.g. how one thought leads to another, for example in the reasoning process. This process does not mirror computational processes in the brain, but rather encompasses a volitional agent with unique thought-thought processes. Neuroscience has no idea how this complex process is done by the brain.
___________________________________________

I understand the presumption on their part, but I don't understand why it is so readily accepted on the layperson's part. Neuroscience hasn't even come remotely close to demonstrating their presumption.

COMMENT: Well, it is to be excepted because cognitive science presents it in scientific, materialist form; i.e. through the gloss of Crick's hypothesis, and continually over-states the evidence that supports this hypothesis. AI, for example, as a theory of human cognition is essentially dead. Yet, how many lay persons realize this? We still see talking heads on 60 Minutes, and movies, like Ex Machina, pretending that life-like human robots are really possible, and maybe even conscious and dangerous. And well-know "geniuses" like Elon Musk buy into it without bothering to think it through.

Excellent comments, Henry. And I love how it all tends to a concluding problem, that the lay-man essentially doesn't quite properly grasp that the metaphors neuroscience writing employ to describe the groping into this 'hard problem' are not meant to be literal. In other words, just as you have it, 60 Minutes and Elon Musk are propagating ideas to the masses that are not in the least demonstrated and aren't actually held all that hardly by the scientists themselves. It's the usual problem with actual science versus popular science writing, but in this case the mistake on the part of the populace too easily sets them up for a false consciousness about themselves, the world and how the two fit together. Many, including some who were once quite prominent and vociferous on RfM, would like to forget just how many people were walking around believing that their volition wasn't their own just because Sam Harris said so, accompanied by a hand-wavey Hard-Science-Libet-something-or-another attempt at authority. The ease that this was accomplished, convincing people that their will isn't actually their own, is frightening, so much so that I remember a lecture by Dennett where he showed studies demonstrating how students who were told they hadn't free will did more poorly on a test than students who weren't told such a thing. He was alarmed and voicing caution. So, to the embarrassment you point out:


Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, there is always one other component that is
> never addressed. Clearly what is happening here is
> that the mind is controlling the brain by
> dictating the brain response to the thought; i.e.
> by thinking the thought, the subject is dictating
> a brain response that can be read-off by the
> computer program. So, I ask, isn't this a
> fundamental example of mental causation in its
> purest form? So, where does the volitional
> thought come from that starts this whole process?
> (Embarrassing!) If it is just the brain, why not
> have the computer read-off the pre-thought
> deterministic neurological cause (action
> potential) of the thought, eliminating the
> middle-man (the Self, the Mind, the conscious
> agent)?

That is very well said!



> COMMENT: Remember, we are not talking about just
> neuroscience; i.e. the science of the brain or
> nervous system. We are talking about *cognitive
> neuroscience*; i.e. how the brain brings about all
> of the capacities of human cognition, including
> behavior, complex thought, rationality, and
> creativity. That creates a responsibility to
> honestly consider the mind-brain correlation,
> including mental causation. So, it is never *just*
> about the brain. Moreover, cognitive psychology
> encompasses mind-mind correlations; e.g. how one
> thought leads to another, for example in the
> reasoning process. This process does not mirror
> computational processes in the brain, but rather
> encompasses a volitional agent with unique
> thought-thought processes. Neuroscience has no
> idea how this complex process is done by the
> brain.
> ___________________________________________

It seems to me that the way neuroscientists, even cognitive neuroscientists, get around your point about "mind-brain correlation" is to assume at the outset that "mind" is merely a stand-in word for the problem at hand, and to refuse to grant it any ontological status. It's all just the brain, but we use "mind" to stand in for that special thing which the brain does, they seem to say with way too many words.



Here's a good example of an intelligent lay-person trying to come to grips with what the neuroscientists are trying to find out and tell us about, specifically RICCARDO MANZOTTI and MICHAEL GRAZIANO:

https://www.bookforum.com/print/2604/the-unending-quest-to-explain-consciousness-23772

He wraps up his exploration rather well:

"Thus, it seems to me, the proliferation of ever wilder positions. You are the apple. Consciousness is an illusion. And, hell, maybe you are the apple. Crazier things have turned out to be true. But if you simply rule in advance that the mind must be physical and assume that an understanding of consciousness must be a materialist understanding, because scientific materialism is obviously correct, you end up looking for your keys under the streetlamp because that’s where the light is."

That last clause perfectly embodies my suspicions about the entire neuroscientific project. But that is how science proceeds, one mistake after another, eliminating mistakes as we go, hundreds of millions of dollars at a time...

...and Flint's water is still poisonous.

Human

It seems to me that the way neuroscientists, even cognitive neuroscientists, get around your point about "mind-brain correlation" is to assume at the outset that "mind" is merely a stand-in word for the problem at hand, and to refuse to grant it any ontological status. It's all just the brain, but we use "mind" to stand in for that special thing which the brain does, they seem to say with way too many words.

COMMENT: As your linked article shows, there are many materialist explanations and theories addressing the mind-body problem in all its forms; too many to address here. (Most of which are either incoherent, demonstrably false, or with little plausibility.) And yes, they all seem, in one way or another, to deny consciousness "ontological status." After all, what else can a materialist do?!

But, I would ask, "What does denial of ontological status mean? Does it mean that consciousness does not "exist" as *either* a separate substance (Descartes) or an emergent "property" (Chalmers). But if that is correct (if consciousness is neither a separate substance or property), phenomenal experience (qualia) must either be denied, or completely mystified, neither of which is acceptable.

Now, suppose we say that consciousness has no separate Cartesian existence, but *is* an emergent property of the brain ala Chalmers. This is the most popular philosophical view. What does that get us? We now are left to explain how the brain produces such a property, in all of its cognitive glory. And, we are left to remember that there is nothing in neuroscience, psychology, or philosophy that links physical systems with phenomenal experience. So, we are back to square one. "Property dualism" or "Aspect dualism" is nothing more than a placeholder for what we already realize we don't understand. It has zero explanatory power.

There is a great article (IMHO) by philosopher Galen Strawson called "Realistic Monism: How physicalism entails panpyschism." Strawson shows (successfully in my view) that materialist "emergence" explanations of mind must entail panpsychism. The article is long, but here is a revealing quote for our purposes here:

"I'll say it again. For Y truly to emerge from X . . . Y must arise out of or be given in X in some essentially non-arbitrary and indeed wholly non-arbitrary way. X has to have something -- indeed everything -- to do with it. That's what emerging is (that's how liquidity arises out of non-liquid phenomena). It is essentially an in-virtue-of relation. It cannot be brute. [i.e. completely independent] Otherwise it will be intelligible to suppose that existence can emerge from (come out of, develop out of) non-existence, or even that concrete phenomena can emerge from wholly abstract phenomena. Brutality rules out nothing. If emergence can be brute, then it is fully intelligible to suppose that non-physical soul-stuff can arise out of physical stuff--in which case we can't rule out the possibility of Cartesian egos *even if we are physicalists.*"

In short, property dualism, or any sort of emergent explanation, vacuous.
___________________________________________________

Here's a good example of an intelligent lay-person trying to come to grips with what the neuroscientists are trying to find out and tell us about, specifically RICCARDO MANZOTTI and MICHAEL GRAZIANO:

https://www.bookforum.com/print/2604/the-unending-quest-to-explain-consciousness-23772

COMMENT: Yes. And this is a nice summary article about the central issues.
______________________________________________

He wraps up his exploration rather well:

"Thus, it seems to me, the proliferation of ever wilder positions. You are the apple. Consciousness is an illusion. And, hell, maybe you are the apple. Crazier things have turned out to be true. But if you simply rule in advance that the mind must be physical and assume that an understanding of consciousness must be a materialist understanding, because scientific materialism is obviously correct, you end up looking for your keys under the streetlamp because that’s where the light is."

COMMENT: When one begins to review the literature on consciousness one realizes at the get-go that non-materialist Cartesian type explanations are not allowed. Period! What happens next is desperation, followed by all sorts of nonsense, couched in "deep philosophy." Dennett is the perfect example. Neuroscientists do not pay much attention to it, unless they decide to think about it, like Damasio, Ramachandran, or LeDoux. Then, they too are soon immersed in philosophical nonsense. The problem is NOT that they are not smart scholars. It is that their commitment to materialism leads them quite naturally to conclusions that are unsupportable by facts or theories. Yet, despite repeated explanatory failures, the astonishing hypothesis remains entrenched. "It must be the brain; what else could it be?"
__________________________________

That last clause perfectly embodies my suspicions about the entire neuroscientific project. But that is how science proceeds, one mistake after another, eliminating mistakes as we go, hundreds of millions of dollars at a time...

...and Flint's water is still poisonous.

COMMENT: I get it that science tends to look where the light is. But historically science also tells us that "paradigm shifts" are important and inevitable. If ever there was a need for a paradigm shift today it is in theoretical cognitive science. It might start by taking both modern quantum physics and paranormal phenomenon seriously, in all of its forms, and by acknowledging that anomalous human reports can be, and often are, credible windows into the real world.

Thanks for your comments, Human. I hope others join in this conversation, either in this post or perhaps another. This mind-body discussion is highly relevant to the formation of a post-Mormon worldview.

I went out for a quick four miler before lunch and had wished I could have turned off the qualia for just a bit. Now, drinking a pitcher of my own berry protein shake, the qualia isn't so bad; and the qualia involved in feeling good that I worked it even when I didn't want to isn't so bad, either. To be old-fashioned about it, my body is exhausted but my soul is happy, contented.


Anyone wishing to follow up Henry's recommendation for Galen Strawson, but cannot allow the time to read the article, can listen to him discuss this topic with Robert Wright, in podcast or on-line at MeaningofLife.tv:

https://meaningoflife.tv/videos/39927?in=00:01

Now I am envious. I used to be a 5-mile-a-dayer myself, in my younger years. Now, it is just a 45-minute daily walk. On the bright side, I don't fall as much; but the runner's high is now just a memory. But, I do live in California, so their are other highs available.

And, I *do* like those protein shakes!