h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Do they admit there is such a concept, though?"

I don't think so, but I don't know for sure. Anyone know?

Thanks, Noggin, I have bookmarked it and will read the rest later - it's very good (though it takes concentratiob!)

I think there's a little choice in most things, including some beliefs. I can definitely think of a few tricks whereby you can force yourself over time to overrule some fairly subconscious stuff, e.g. attraction.

I wouldn't call it healthy though.

There's a part of the brain, the Reticular Activating System, which controls whether we're fully conscious and alert, or asleep and so not under conscious control.

Most of the brain can function are subconscious 'mode'. When you're riding a bicycle you needn't know nor attend to quite how you do it. Your cycling muscles and their control system is in subconscious mode, leaving your conscious attention to concentrate your route and potential dangers of the road.

You might be concentrating on some task and not attending to sounds, but your subconscious is; and if someone mentions your name within earshot, you'll be aware of it. Some stranger's name will pass unnoticed.

We can only 'focus' our conscious attention on so much at once. We wouldn't survive if everything else were just left inactive. Our subconscious is the 'autopilot' which keep going the bits we're not concentrating on at the time.

I could also answer in another way. The 'highest', most 'conscious', most recently evolved parts of the brain are those that we have and lower animals don't. This tends to be the outer and frontal part. Self-consciousness and decision-making is, in a sense, right behind your forehead! Deeper levels are only capable of operating subconsciously at most. Deeper still are the automatic functions which are wholly unconscious. The 'superior colliculus' is a classic example of an area of unconscious vision. It is involved in the phenomenon of 'blindsight', which you might care to look up.

That's a very crude and sketchy account of an enormous subject!

Doc

"

Like what kind of dreams?"

Stables, horse-like spirits.

" Anyone know if they've found the part of the brain that controls the subconscious?"

The 'subconscious' is a psychological construct of the mind, so I doubt neurologists will ever find it in the brain. But you never know.
(Scene: operating theatre, team of surgeons and operating staff start as the surgeon calls to his senior:
"Fred, this is odd. what do you think it is? I've never seen anything like it before."
Fred examines the soft tissue and scratches head. "Well, blow me down! You've just discovered the subconscious, Harry! This will get you a mention in the Lancet for sure!")

"Most of the brain can function are subconscious 'mode'. When you're riding a bicycle you needn't know nor attend to quite how you do it. Your cycling muscles and their control system is in subconscious mode, leaving your conscious attention to concentrate your route and potential dangers of the road."

NLP has a nice little model of the stages by which something is passed from the conscious to the subconcious e.g. learning to drive. the four stages are:
Unconscious unknowing
Conscious unknowing
Conscious knowing
Unconscious knowing
You know you've cracked the last stage when, after doing your normal commuter run, you can't remember anything at all about the drive.

My memories of various Radion 4 programmes tend to be attached to a visual memory of certain parts of the roads in Gloucestershire or Wiltshire, wherever I heard the programme. But that's about all I usually recall of the journeys.

Hi, HS. I hope you broadly agree with my 'Ladybird Book' of the subconscious. Despite your saying that it's a human construct, there are real properties and behaviour that correspond to it.



The other way to know is when you have to make a side trip towards the end of your normal run, but just continue to the end on 'automatic pilot'!

toxx

E&C

<>

Although the human brain is a three dimensional physical object it should be remembered that ultimately "dimensionality" is a logical construct based on the number of "orders of relationship" between locations. The internal structure of the brain's connections allows it to be logically multi-dimensional, and therefore a mind that is purely a manifestation of the workings of the brain can be multi-dimensional too.

Noggin

And just as an afterthought can anyone think of an "original" sin?

Answers on a postcard to the usual address....

Noggin

>> like that last bit. It's what I like doing. Is it good or bad?<<

Is any exercize good?


>>You speak as though 'truth' is objective. If it is, then surely the Christian paradigm of 'one god and all others are not real or manifestations of the devil' esxcludes other religious paradigms and, with them, associated diverse ethical positions?<<

dunno your relegion, but I presume you think that it is the right one- hence, that it is the truth.

>>Hence, where the ethics of my own religion do not agree with commonly agreed Christian ethics/morality, both cannot express an objective 'good'. <<

Well obviously. What I meant was that you beleive the ethics of your relegion to be truth. Obviously all relegions cannot share the same truth, but they all agree that there is one. (Though in general the trend seems to be toward a 'self-improvement' of some type.)


And, while this may sound like a pathetic excuse to avoid further answering, my browser is malfunctioning and I cant access the rest of your reply. I'll try again later.

"Hi, HS. I hope you broadly agree with my 'Ladybird Book' of the subconscious. Despite your saying that it's a human construct, there are real properties and behaviour that correspond to it."

isn't that the best sort of construct, toxx?

I'm alos quite fond of Freud's ego, superego and id. although we may never discover a brain location for the first two, I think the amygdala is a good bet for the last.

"And just as an afterthought can anyone think of an "original" sin?"

Well, no good asking us pagans, then, Noggin - we don't have sin!

..... however, if I was looking at the biblical story and human nature, I'd think blaming someone else for what you did is a good contender.

"Well obviously. What I meant was that you beleive the ethics of your relegion to be truth. Obviously all relegions cannot share the same truth, but they all agree that there is one. (Though in general the trend seems to be toward a 'self-improvement' of some type.)"

Yes, but the implication of your argument was that there was an objective truth. Do I take it that you are not arguing that position at all, and actually believe that truth is all relative? or do you believe that some truths are objective i.e. common to every religion, while others are not?

If the last, which truths would you pick, and why?

I go along with C S Lewis ("The Abolition of Man") who argued that some truths are found in many religions (though not neceassarily all religions).

the truths/ethics of my own religion are:
(a) personal responsibility for one's deeds
(b) reciprocity - a gift for a gift - in one's dealing with other wights (including gods)
(c) personal honour: to do only that which one can bring proudly before others (including one's gods)
(d) to keep one's oaths and mean what one says
(e) to honour one's kin, ancestors, gods and landwights, and to treat each one with respect
(f) if you take what is not yours, or do some other harm, you admit what you have done and pay the required price

Yes, I beleive there are truths that are not relative, but they have nothing to do with relegions. That is, they are eternal truths of the universe and how things work. For example, if I were to point at a rock and say, "That is a rock" that would be Truth, by any standards, (except deep philosophy, which is not always 'truthful' at all.)

But, I might point out, that some of the ethics of your relegion are pretty basic to ALL, (or at the very least, the vast majority) of relegions.

>>(a) personal responsibility for one's deeds<<

Well, that's really the idea behind h*ll in christianity and Islam, reincarnation in Bhuddism, Hinduism, and Judaism, and its a main point in Confuscianism.

>>(c)... to do only that which one can bring proudly before others.<<

Pretty much the same. Judaism has an adage: "Place God before you always." This means, dont do it if God wouldn't like it.

>>(d) to keep one's oaths and mean what one says<<

Keeping one's word is pretty basic in any relegion. Its part of honesty, which is usually one of the main ethics.


>>(e) to honour one's kin, ancestors, gods and landwights, and to treat each one with respect.<<

"Honor thine mother and father" "Before the aged you should rise" "A teacher must be honored like thine parents" are all quoted from the Old Testament and related books. Confuscionism of course places heavy emphasis on respect, and I'm pretty sure the Hindu-Bhuddism family of relegions does as well.


>>(f) if you take what is not yours, or do some other harm, you admit what you have done and pay the required price.<<

I dont know exact quotes for this one, but its not only relegious. Its part of civilization.

I guess what this made me realize the most is that although relegions don't all agree on everything, and some are downright unfriendly toward those that dont agree with them, all-in-all, they all strive to create a civilized society that behaves in a correct and ethical manner according to how they interpret 'Truth' and the will of God.

<<"

Like what kind of dreams?"

Stables, horse-like spirits.>>

Hmm... Sounds like your housewight is a horseperson.

toxx: Thank you, even though I'm not sure if you answered my question or not...

HS: On the 'autopilot' thing, sometimes that happens when I'm writing, resulting in more spelling errors than I usually make. D'you think that's a similar phenomenon?

Noggin: Agh! Confusing! *s for cover* On 'original sins', I'm not entirely certain there are any that haven't been thought up yet.

And just because I want to start a debate of my very own, I believe humans don't need Satan to make them sin - they can do it all on their own.

Yay, E&C.



You address that one to HS, but I'd like to reply if I may. I've made a study of the reasons for errors in all kinds of activities including thinking.

I've been touch-typing for so long that I don't know which keys on the keyboard do what. I just have a 'muscle memory' of how to type. I find my errors are interesting in that they are usually real words but the wrong ones, rather than just a wrong letter inserted in a word. Some years ago, it was different; I often typed 'pronlem' instead of 'problem', for example. Not any more.

I seem to have an 'autopilot' for words, but if I think too far ahead it will type 'their' instead of 'there', for example.

Hey, I just typed 'if I thing too far ahead' and corrected it. There you go. It does tend to be letters towards the end of a word. I'm terrible for missing the final 's' in plurals.

I can't think of any case where I've mistaken the first letter. I also suspect that if I accidentally type a non-word my subconscious does a double-take and alerts me. If it is the wrong real word, the old autopilot isn't sophisticated enough to spot it!

This is how we start doing psychological research. Spot something intriguing and attempt to find out what lies behind it.

toxx

I wish I could touch-type, I have tried to learn many times, and the mistakes I make are always the same ones, like substituting , for m in same just there (which I am about to correct now!)

Hi Bio (and HS)

As a druid I am committed to pursuing and examining truth, and truths. It is is our gift to often be able to divide truths from the fantasies of desire and a complex world.

Many of the world's religions have divined a certain number of truths, however they have also created many fantasies. Most of these are due to the religion's founders' or great teachers' desire to impress their philosophies upon the world, rather than accepting less comfortable truths from the world itself.

A good example is the entrenched dogma that curses modern christianity. Their churches have nailed their colours so firmly to that ancient mast - the bible - that when a new truth is revealed (such as Evolution)they cannot accept it and indeed must risk all in opposing it.

However you cannot oppose a truth. You might as well rail against the sunrise. To do so is to place yourself away from truth, and in that road lies only extinction.

Onto HS's listing. I think you have missed the point with a few of them Bio. To whit:

"But, I might point out, that some of the ethics of your relegion are pretty basic to ALL, (or at the very least, the vast majority) of relegions."

Er.. no they are not, for reasons I shall go into below:

>>(a) personal responsibility for one's deeds<<

"Well, that's really the idea behind h*ll in christianity and Islam, reincarnation in Bhuddism, Hinduism, and Judaism, and its a main point in Confuscianism."

The Hell of Christianity is not about personal responsibility at all. It is about the capricious whims of a vicious creator-God who allows 'original sin' to infect the innocent and then when they fail punishes them or rewards them with no apparent rhyme or reason.

The personal responsibility of which HS speaks is a common philosophy amongst the Northern traditions we both subscribe to. It is far more about taking responsibility in this life than waiting for some post-death judgement or karmic retribution. You will find amongst druids, asartruar and heathens a great emphasis placed upon walking the talk and honouring the land, the gods and our ancestors by our deeds.

The followers of the near eastern, or abrahamic, gods place more emphasis on divine retribution at death for 'sins'. The far eastern ones shackle the soul with future lives of suffering. Neither appeal I must admit.

>>(c)... to do only that which one can bring proudly before others.<<

"Pretty much the same. Judaism has an adage: "Place God before you always." This means, dont do it if God wouldn't like it. "

Don't do it if God wouldn't like it? Sorry, but how do you know what that particular God likes and dislikes? His laws are oftimes contradictory and overlaid with a hundred generations of rabbinical reinterpretation.

What HS is saying is that one should consider, when taking a particular action or path, would this bring shame upon those I love and respect? How would they look at me if what I have done was shown to them?

>>(d) to keep one's oaths and mean what one says<<

"Keeping one's word is pretty basic in any relegion. Its part of honesty, which is usually one of the main ethics."

Not really. Most of the world's great (?) religions seem to have little to say about it (though Alji is almost certain to call me on that one ). In the property-obsessed OT of Christianity and Judaism much more emphasis is placed upon not stealing than spiritual or personal Honesty.

Amongst the Northern Traditions a oath taken is sacred and death is quite preferable to failure to keep it.

>>(e) to honour one's kin, ancestors, gods and landwights, and to treat each one with respect.<<

"Honor thine mother and father" "Before the aged you should rise" "A teacher must be honored like thine parents" are all quoted from the Old Testament and related books. Confuscionism of course places heavy emphasis on respect, and I'm pretty sure the Hindu-Bhuddism family of relegions does as well."

Honour is a far more complex concept in the Northern Traditions than merely being polite or respectful to your elders. Honour stems from everything you do in your relationship with your "kin, ancestors, gods and landwights".

Really the abrahamic religions have nothing to compare with this, and the far eastern philosophies barely touch upon it. Don't get me wrong this doesn't make them inferior, just different in their emphases on what is important on the relationship between man and the divine.

>>(f) if you take what is not yours, or do some other harm, you admit what you have done and pay the required price.<<

"I dont know exact quotes for this one, but its not only relegious. Its part of civilization."

Unfortunately it is not part of modern western 'civilisation'. Following the dominant christian culture much more emphasis is placed on punishing the offender than restituting the offended.

In our Northern Traditions we focus instead upon the victims and their kin. What can be done to alleviate their pain rather than causing more.

"I guess what this made me realize the most is that although relegions don't all agree on everything, and some are downright unfriendly toward those that dont agree with them, all-in-all, they all strive to create a civilized society that behaves in a correct and ethical manner according to how they interpret 'Truth' and the will of God."

I wish that that were true Bio, but history teaches us a different lesson. Christianity, in particular, has a desire to convert or destroy all that does not meet it's model for civilisation. Any christians out there that wish to disagree with me on this I suggest first review their history before taking up their keyboard.

Remember that all three abrahamic religions interpretation of their scripture would have us stoning adulterers amongst a long list of capital crimes. Do you consider this ethical or civilised? What truth is served by this?

As for the 'will of God' well, I ask you, how does such barbarity serve any God?

I look forward to your reply on this question in particular

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

bio-C

>>dunno your relegion, but I presume you think that it is the right one- hence, that it is the truth. <<

In my religion, heathenry, there is no requirement to believe that I/we have THE truth.

I accept the reality of, and in some cases honour and maybe offer to, deities from other religions. Minerva for one, and when I am in his churches, I honour the Christian god as a matter of politeness. However, that doesn't mean I think the Christian god has the attributes that most Christians give him, as in triple-O and perfectly good. I can't accept that this world and the others were created in the way that Christians believe or for the purpose Christians believe.

Thus I have no desire and certainly no religious imperative to either persecute or evangelise to the followers of other religions.

IME the gods have little problem getting the people they call to accept their existence, though it sometimes takes a while - but they don't seem to be bothered by that. I think their use of time is very different from what we perceive.

>>Well obviously. What I meant was that you beleive the ethics of your relegion to be truth.<<

True, but not the /only/ truth.

>>Obviously all relegions cannot share the same truth, but they all agree that there is one.>>

The idea of a singular, definitive article TRUTH is not something I am comfortable with. I accept that the Bhuddist position has truth, etc...

Again, this idea of a singular truth is not a requirement for me.

<<(Though in general the trend seems to be toward a 'self-improvement' of some type.)<<

This is, as you imply, a bit vague... I feel 'improved', yes. But that is a side-effect not the main reason for my beliefs. I believe/know my gods are real because they get into my head and my life and into the heads and lives of my friends. The reason for their activity seems to be not some general idea of making us all into improved people, but to get things they want done, done. It's a very active belief system.

It starts with your external deeds. Then your words, then (and this you can only infer from the way people act ) your thoughts and motivations.

It's too early in the morning... I don't think I have made a very good job of this post

Jez