Ongoing Skeptic Thread

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

When you feel good inside because you've done something good with no gain to yourself, is that logical?
Where does that feeling come from?

A release of endorphins from the pituitary gland.

[old-fart]

Was just going to post that.... biology and chemistry, not sky fairy.

[troutman]

The Brain Is Not a Receiver
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...ot-a-receiver/

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

When you feel good inside because you've done something good with no gain to yourself, is that logical?
Where does that feeling come from?

Genetics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...une-cells.html

The are benefits to doing things that help the greater good of your tribe from an evolutionary standpoint. Your tribe usually was close genetically to yourself and it is beneficial from your Gene's standpoint to increase the odds of reproduction.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

When you feel good inside because you've done something good with no gain to yourself, is that logical?

I think it is in a larger context of what a society is. But even if it doesn't seem logical, that doesn't equate to actually being illogical or without alternative explanation. And even if there currently is no logical reason known...

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Where does that feeling come from?

...does not mean that an unanswered question, by default, gets answered by "god".

That boils down to the god of the gaps fallacy.

What are you proposing precisely? That an entity or agent dwells inside each person that is incapable of being detected (i.e. doesn't react with our world of matter and energy), but then can at times interact with our world of matter and energy?

How does this happen? Does this agent move electrons and atoms in ways and force chemical reactions that would not naturally occur? If it did this, this could be detected.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Genetics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...une-cells.html

The are benefits to doing things that help the greater good of your tribe from an evolutionary standpoint. Your tribe usually was close genetically to yourself and it is beneficial from your Gene's standpoint to increase the odds of reproduction.

Well you and "down in flames" shot down my example. I should have known better but I was trying to give something that wasn't immediately logical. From what I know of this experience inside, it can't be reasoned and so is difficult to explain.

What it does say in that article is that,

UCLA research found that people who derive their happiness from helping others have strong antibody genes, while people who get their kicks from self-gratification can suffer from low antiviral and anitbody gene expression.

From this it can be gathered that there are different levels of awareness. I'm saying that there is more to see on the inside than what is commonly believed. When Socrates said "know thyself", I believe he was talking about this.

I can't discuss Troutman's article as I don't have any experience with differentiating the mind from the brain other than knowing that they are tools we have. I'm more into differentiating the mind from the heart. When I follow my heart it feels good. When I follow my mind a lot of different things can happen.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

I think it is in a larger context of what a society is. But even if it doesn't seem logical, that doesn't equate to actually being illogical or without alternative explanation. And even if there currently is no logical reason known...

...does not mean that an unanswered question, by default, gets answered by "god".

That boils down to the god of the gaps fallacy.

What are you proposing precisely? That an entity or agent dwells inside each person that is incapable of being detected (i.e. doesn't react with our world of matter and energy), but then can at times interact with our world of matter and energy?

How does this happen? Does this agent move electrons and atoms in ways and force chemical reactions that would not naturally occur? If it did this, this could be detected.

No it does not by default get answered by god but it is a question to be pondered.

I'll try to explain further. It isn't that some other entity invades us. I look at it as god or this life force is everywhere and if it's everywhere than it's inside of us also. Think of it as what's inside is like a drop of the ocean.

Kabir says,
“All know that the drop merges into the ocean, but few know that the ocean merges into the drop.”



http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3159...-the-ocean-but


This experience is inside of us. I don't know what it's limits are and I believe that some chemical changes probably do occur inside me because I feel a lot different when I do this thing.


Here's another quote from Kabir.

“Are you looking for me?
I am in the next seat.
My shoulder is against yours.
you will not find me in the stupas,
not in Indian shrine rooms,
nor in synagogues,
nor in cathedrals:
not in masses,
nor kirtans,
not in legs winding around your own neck,
nor in eating nothing but vegetables.
When you really look for me,
you will see me instantly —
you will find me in the tiniest house of time.
Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God?
He is the breath inside the breath.”
― Kabir

[Vulcan]

Here's more from Kabir.

“The guest is inside you, and also inside me;
you know the sprout is hidden inside the seed.
We are all struggling; none of us has gone far.
Let your arrogance go, and look around inside.

The blue sky opens out farther and farther,
the daily sense of failure goes away,
the damage I have done to myself fades,
a million suns come forward with light,
when I sit firmly in that world.

I hear bells ringing that no one has shaken,
inside "love" there is more joy than we know of,
rain pours down, although the sky is clear of clouds,
there are whole rivers of light.
The universe is shot through in all parts by a single sort of love.
How hard it is to feel that joy in all our four bodies!

Those who hope to be reasonable about it fail.
The arrogance of reason has separated us from that love.
With the word "reason" you already feel miles away.”
― Kabir, The Kabir book: Forty-four of the ecstatic poems of Kabir

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

No it does not by default get answered by god but it is a question to be pondered.

Sure, everyone ponders the question at some point to some degree. But that doesn't mean the idea has any actual merit.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'll try to explain further. It isn't that some other entity invades us. I look at it as god or this life force is everywhere and if it's everywhere than it's inside of us also. Think of it as what's inside is like a drop of the ocean.

But there is no pervasive life force. There's nothing different about the atoms that make up a bunny vs. the atoms that make up a puddle, a rock, the air, etc. The idea of life force arose to try and explain why some things are alive and some aren't. Like the earth being flat, it at first appears like a self-evident truth.

But subsequent observation has made the hypothesis unnecessary, there's no atomic or chemical interaction that has ever been observed that requires the addition of life force to explain.

Just like the hypothesis of a dome above the earth to hold back the waters of the deep is no longer necessary.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

This experience is inside of us. I don't know what it's limits are and I believe that some chemical changes probably do occur inside me because I feel a lot different when I do this thing.

I don't think you're being clear here though. The experience is inside of us, meaning eventually our brain. Which operates via chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Again are those things manipulated by this life force to be different than they otherwise would have been had the life force not been involved? Because that's what would be required to feel different; the brain has to be changed.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Those who hope to be reasonable about it fail.
The arrogance of reason has separated us from that love.
With the word "reason" you already feel miles away.

Sure, dissuading reason in favour of credulity is always the way of a belief system that cannot stand up to the light of reason. It's very common.

Originally Posted by Proverbs 3:5-6

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.

And frankly that quote sounds offensive, reason isn't arrogant and saying those that use it are incapable of love is demonstrably false as well as being arrogant itself.

Everyone uses reason all day long in every area of their lives. When you assume your car is where you parked it, that's reason. When you lose your keys and look in different places, that's reason ("I keep looking in the kitchen because that's where I want them to be" isn't reasonable, so no one does this). Typing on the keyboard on keys that reliably reproduce the same letters to spell words that reliably have the same definitions that can facilitate communication to another mind all require reason.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, everyone ponders the question at some point to some degree. But that doesn't mean the idea has any actual merit.



But there is no pervasive life force. There's nothing different about the atoms that make up a bunny vs. the atoms that make up a puddle, a rock, the air, etc. The idea of life force arose to try and explain why some things are alive and some aren't. Like the earth being flat, it at first appears like a self-evident truth.

But subsequent observation has made the hypothesis unnecessary, there's no atomic or chemical interaction that has ever been observed that requires the addition of life force to explain.

Just like the hypothesis of a dome above the earth to hold back the waters of the deep is no longer necessary.



I don't think you're being clear here though. The experience is inside of us, meaning eventually our brain. Which operates via chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Again are those things manipulated by this life force to be different than they otherwise would have been had the life force not been involved? Because that's what would be required to feel different; the brain has to be changed.

I'm not recommending this site but it seems in this experiment there were some changes in the brain.

What was startling was that the MRI scans showed that mindfulness groups increased gray matter concentration within the left hippocampus, the posterior cingulate cortex, the temporo-parietal junction, and the cerebellum. Brain regions involved in learning and memory, emotion regulation, sense of self, and perspective taking!

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-12793...-explains.html


I think you're looking at the brain as the seat of consciousness instead of the heart. In other society's the heart was the important source.

and again I'm not recommending this site but these two quotes get at what I'm saying.

Many other cultures also find the seat of our selves to be not in the brain but in the heart. For example, the ancient Egyptians thought so little of the brain that when mummifying a body to preserve it for the deceased’s use in the afterlife, they tossed the brain away along with all of the other internal organs – with the notable exception of the heart.

And when C.J. Jung worked with people of the Pueblo nations, Hopi elder Ochwiay Biano (Mountain Lake, also a.k.a. Antonio Mirabal) informed him that in his view, white people were not only uneasy and restless, they were crazy mad. Why? Because “they say that they think with their heads. ‘We think here,’ he said, indicating his heart” (Jung 1973, p.247-8). Jung noted ways in which modern culture, construing the gift of knowledge as cognition alone, has deleterious side effects.

http://indigenize.wordpress.com/2013...brain-deposed/

The examples of the flat earth and the dome to keep out the waters of the deep were just fanciful ideas which didn't have any impact on their lives. Going inside did and does have an impact.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, dissuading reason in favour of credulity is always the way of a belief system that cannot stand up to the light of reason. It's very common.



And frankly that quote sounds offensive, reason isn't arrogant and saying those that use it are incapable of love is demonstrably false as well as being arrogant itself.

Everyone uses reason all day long in every area of their lives. When you assume your car is where you parked it, that's reason. When you lose your keys and look in different places, that's reason ("I keep looking in the kitchen because that's where I want them to be" isn't reasonable, so no one does this). Typing on the keyboard on keys that reliably reproduce the same letters to spell words that reliably have the same definitions that can facilitate communication to another mind all require reason.

I'd argue it's not a belief system as when I do this, a result happens.

Sure everyone uses reason all day long but I look at it as a tool rather than that which is in charge. Reason to me is used too achieve what I need and want but it isn't the thing that drives my needs and wants.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not recommending this site but it seems in this experiment there were some changes in the brain.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-12793...-explains.html

That doesn't demonstrate or even support the idea that an otherwise unknown life force influences the brain at an atomic level, in fact the article says exactly the opposite; that the brains own processes can, through the brain's plasticity, alter itself. All normal chemical and electrical reactions, no undefined life force detected or required.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think you're looking at the brain as the seat of consciousness instead of the heart. In other society's the heart was the important source.

Societies have thought a great many things about reality that have turned out to be incorrect. Just because people feel that the heart is the seat of consciousness doesn't make it true.

Feelings make a terrible epistemology.

And we know this to be untrue. We can replace the heart of one person with the heart from another and consciousness doesn't change. Heck we can replace the heart completely with something made of plastic and ceramic.

However we know we can alter a person's consciousness drastically by manipulating the brain. Be it through drugs, electromagnetic radiation, or physical intervention (or damage). A person can become completely different, with needs and wants that are radically different, because of alterations to the brain.

Your article even denounces the idea, talking about altering a person's own brain through meditation to improve their lives (by changing their needs and wants). The heart isn't changed.

Unless you are talking about a spiritual heart, in which case we're back to the same as life force; claiming something exists beyond the realm of detectability but interacts with the physical world (which has never been observed).

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and again I'm not recommending this site but these two quotes get at what I'm saying.

Animal or even human sacrifice can also be found in some cultures (including Egypt) too. Just because a culture holds a belief does not give the belief any merit or truth value.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

http://indigenize.wordpress.com/2013...brain-deposed/

Lol, this is just more god of the gaps argument, which is still a fallacy. Just because a flatworm can store memories outside it's brain and people haven't found out the method yet does not mean "therefore life force, or therefore spiritual heart". (And we've already shown the physical heart is not the seat of consciousness because removing it doesn't change consciousness). All this means is that the system is more complex than we yet know.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The examples of the flat earth and the dome to keep out the waters of the deep were just fanciful ideas which didn't have any impact on their lives.

It's not about what impact a belief has on lives, the truthfulness or falseness of a claim about reality doesn't depend on its impact on people, and how suitable an epistemology is at determining that truthfulness doesn't change just because you deem the ideas fanciful. (And the ideas weren't fanciful, they were serious thoughts by people seriously trying to understand their reality).

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Going inside did and does have an impact.

Everything has an impact. Focusing entirely externally would have an impact. Focusing on anger all the time would have an impact. That's how our brain works, no requirement for an undetectable influence. It doesn't have to be that way, but that's what's observed.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'd argue it's not a belief system as when I do this, a result happens.

It's still a belief system. A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. A belief is a psychological state where an individual holds a premise to be true. One's view of reality is a belief system (unless they deny reality exists, which in itself is still a statement of reality that they hold to be true so it's still a belief system).

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Sure everyone uses reason all day long but I look at it as a tool rather than that which is in charge.

Of course, though I'd say it's even more than a tool, it's more like the river we swim in. Without reason there IS no way to interact with reality, no consciousness, because then "Love is a virtue" and "purple monkey diswasher" have equal validity as truth statements about the smell of 5. There can be no structure or communication without reason.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Reason to me is used too achieve what I need and want but it isn't the thing that drives my needs and wants.

Never claimed that it was. It can inform your needs and wants. I feel this discomfort inside, prior experience tells me that it can be satiated by putting stuff in my mouth, so I need and want food. That depends on reason, even defining your needs and wants depends on reason.

But just because our needs and wants don't originate from reason, doesn't mean they originate from a life force.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

It's still a belief system. A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. A belief is a psychological state where an individual holds a premise to be true. One's view of reality is a belief system (unless they deny reality exists, which in itself is still a statement of reality that they hold to be true so it's still a belief system).



Of course, though I'd say it's even more than a tool, it's more like the river we swim in. Without reason there IS no way to interact with reality, no consciousness, because then "Love is a virtue" and "purple monkey diswasher" have equal validity as truth statements about the smell of 5. There can be no structure or communication without reason.



Never claimed that it was. It can inform your needs and wants. I feel this discomfort inside, prior experience tells me that it can be satiated by putting stuff in my mouth, so I need and want food. That depends on reason, even defining your needs and wants depends on reason.

But just because our needs and wants don't originate from reason, doesn't mean they originate from a life force.

Yeah, in your terms I'm speaking of the spiritual heart. At least not the physical heart but it is still something that I feel. Not like a feeling but something tangible.

As far as it being a belief system, it's more like you get in your car with the belief that it will get you where you want to go. Providing you have a decent vehicle, it will mostly work out. I have a good vehicle.

If you want to take it too extremes everything is based on a belief. Myself I believe I'm here and exist in this world but I imagine some could make a good argument that I don't, it still doesn't make it true.

Yeah sure reason is a tool we need, it just shouldn't be in charge.

Back to the life force, I'm guessing you're not conscious of it, so you say it doesn't exist. I am conscious of it, so I say it does exist.

[missdpuck]

Luke 17:21-- "The Kingdom of God is within you" .

When I do mindfulness, I consider it a belief system. It's a structured way of organizing my disorganized thoughts.

Years ago, I was in an organization that attempted to deprogram members of religious cults.

Unfortunately/fortunately, they wanted you to indoctrinate the person into some watered-down version of the Baptist or Fundamentalist view.

No, I'm not sure what I mean by that.

The church people I knew didn't like Luke 17:21 so much, as it implies you don't need organized religion.

Being an atheist, I interpret it quite differently.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah, in your terms I'm speaking of the spiritual heart. At least not the physical heart but it is still something that I feel. Not like a feeling but something tangible.

Unless you can have everyone else touch it and agree with you about its nature, then it isn't tangible by definition. It's still a feeling; an especially strong one, but a feeling regardless.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If you want to take it too extremes everything is based on a belief. Myself I believe I'm here and exist in this world but I imagine some could make a good argument that I don't, it still doesn't make it true.

Belief is holding a proposition to be true (that's the definition I'm using), so yes everything is based on beliefs (no extremes necessary). We operate day to day based entirely on our beliefs (based on all the propositions we hold to be true). Some beliefs are well substantiated (I believe gravity will hold me to the earth and will do it again tomorrow), some not so much, some are irrational and some demonstrably false.

And yes just because someone makes a good argument doesn't make it true. Just because someone feels something doesn't make it true. And that's what we're really discussing here, is how to determine if a belief is in fact true.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Back to the life force, I'm guessing you're not conscious of it, so you say it doesn't exist. I am conscious of it, so I say it does exist.

I used to believe I was conscious of it. I was also conscious of the tangible presence of both God and Satan, including physical manifestations of them. I'm not saying it doesn't exist because I'm not conscious of it, I'm saying it doesn't exist because there's no evidence it exists and that being aware of it is something that is explained by neuroscience, even to the point of being able to induce it externally on a test subject.

People all over the world report the same, or being conscious of their (mutually exclusive) god or gods, or ancestors, or what have you.

Or alien presences, some people channel ancient aliens. Or ghosts, people speak with the dead.

Their experiences are just as strong as yours, so must be equally valid as yours (which means God and Satan, Allah and Vishnu, hundreds of different alien species all contacting humans, ghosts, etc all exist). Either that or you have to admit that what you are conscious of is just as possibly not real as all those others; why would you happen to have the truth when most others do not?

[Knut]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...udies-of-2013/

Top 10 Chiropractic Studies of 2013.

Great piece from Dr. Harriet Hall on the wonders of Chiropractic care.

---

As an aside. I recently had a question regarding an eye related medical study that i emailed to Dr. hall. She responded within 24 hours with some fantastic information. Nice to have that accessibility.

[troutman]

This blog is a devastating summary on chiro criticism (written by a former chiro):

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...y-of-concerns/

There is no credible evidence to support use of spinal manipulation for anything other than uncomplicated mechanical-type back pain and related neuromusculoskeletal problems. There is no evidence at all to support chiropractic subluxation theory. It has never been demonstrated that a real orthopedic subluxation or a pinched spinal nerve can affect general health or that an undetectable “vertebral subluxation complex” can cause organic problems.14 If you are looking for a chiropractor who offers spinal manipulation as an option in the treatment of back pain, look for one who does not subscribe to subluxation theory ─ one who is willing to exchange office notes with your family physician. Remember that most of the time, acute low-back pain is a self-limiting condition that will resolve in four to six weeks, with or without treatment. Appropriate treatment can, however, relieve symptoms and speed recovery. When back pain grows progressively worse, persists unrelieved for longer than a week, or is worsened by rest, there may be cause for alarm. Chiropractic care should not be continued for longer than two to four weeks if there is no measured improvement. A correct diagnosis is essential when considering treatment options. Treatment based on correction of an alleged chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex may result in unnecessary chiropractic adjustments for nonexistent or unrelated problems, delaying appropriate treatment based on a correct diagnosis. I don’t know of any reason to manipulate the immature, cartilaginous spine of a neonate or an infant as some pediatric chiropractors are doing.15

[troutman]

Bausell 4 Item Checklist:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/4/

• Subjects are randomly assigned to a CAM therapy or a credible placebo
• At least 50 subjects per group
• Less than 25% dropout rate
• Publication in a high-quality, prestigious, peer-reviewed journal