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

"Did anyone see Andy Hamilton's 'Search for Satan' on BBC Four?"

Watched it last night. Interesting and amusing (Andy Hamilton usually is, we so need him to redo Drop The Dead Donkey for 21st century).
In criticism I'd say there was nothing there that isn't unknown to anyone with a bit of interest in finding out the facts, wasn't exactly breaking new ground. But as a bit of pop telly for the general masses who've probably never actually looked at the origins not bad. A couple of obvious historical errors that needn't have been there.
I'd say it was Horizon level theology Entertaining though.

The RC Priest was a bit of a wet blanket wasn't he? No thinking just doctrine. Whereas the Rabbi Prof. came across quite well I thought, amusing and well read.

The number of people interested in finding out the facts is very small and those who should be interested probably wont watch it anyway. My 'born again Christian' friend would not read anything that had not been sanctioned by his pastor.

Did Andy Hamilton actually find Satan then?

Not really, turns out he doesn't exist and is a rationalization of various gaps/problems in Christian theology using borrowed concepts and entities from various other religions. Now there's a shock.

Pity.

F

Excellent pod cast @ http://www.microphilosophy.net/?p=260 - The Lust for Certainty. Can also be found on Twitter @ https://twitter.com/#!/microphilosophy

"Did anyone see Andy Hamilton's 'Search for Satan' on BBC Four?"

Excellent.

PS - can anyone remember how to do quotes, 'cos I can't...

>> anyone remember how to do quotes <<

The easiest solution, whether quoting from a previous
posting or from some external source, is to copy and
paste into your post and separate from your own remarks
by "quotation marks" or >>some other marks<< as I have
done above.

~jwf~

Ever die?? Personally that is??

I did back in 67. In a rocket attack. I had an out of body experience. I watched me laying back in my foxhole motionless with no sounds. My consciousness was well above the ground and away of everything but there was no interaction with the physical world. After some time I found my consciousness in my body and could not feel or see anything. I wondered if it what death felt like. Then I decided to find my body. I found my feet, hands then I started to breath still in total darkness and silence. After more time my eyes opened and there was full battle sounds and action. At that point I staggered and passed out only to awaken again with the battle still raging... By morning I had so many reruns of blackouts I was ready to give up.... SO is there a God?. I did not see one or talk to any spirits but there is some existence outside our bodies that I can not explain.

The problem with your rationalisation there is you are taking a subjective experience and using it to justify an objective conclusion.
There is no external validation for OOBEs, though many have been tried. This is not to say it isn't objectively real, but there is a very big question. The idea that it can happen relies on there being a non-corporeal part of our existence. This is not proven or even evidenced.

It is possible to induce such experiences in some, and it is possible to relocate the sense of location of 'I' quite simply. These have neuro-psychological explanations.

Your brain is a hugely complex and powerful thing, capable of all sorts of weirdness. You just have to look at those who have various neuroilogical conditions and injuries and the alterations in perception that they have to see just what it is capable of. One I always come back to was the case of a schizophrenic who perceived the world as being completely submerged. That was their reality and their brain constructed their experience of the world accordingly. This is quite a remarkable feat.

The question of where 'I' is located, and how and why it is so located is an interesting one. People often marvel at OOBEs and seek to explain it as their being some essence of self which has relocated but never seem to marvel at in-body experiences. The fact that I feel like 'I' am located within my head - why? The non-corporeal explanation is somewhat like the homunculus explanation of their being something sat in the brain driving the body. There is absolutely no evidence for this. There is no neuro-correlate for consciousness, no one area that is the source and control of other actions. Instead, processing and control in the brain is distributed and parallel.

The experiments done on relocation of sense of being indicate that the brain locates the self primarily behind the eyes (for sighted individuals) but with input from other senses. The sense of embodiment comes from proprioception, which is the sense of our own body. All the nerves and detectors that come from our various organs, muscles, joints and so on gives us an unconscious sense of our body, of being embodied. The brain has centres for processing all these and is why amputees sometimes have phantom limb sensations. Someone who, for whatever reason, has their proprioception processing interrupt has the feeling of being disembodied and floating in nothingness, just like in an OOBE.

Equally, there is no evidence of the our visual view of the world being painted on a canvas inside our heads. Rather every part of processing system from the retina through to the various brain modules reconstructs a 'best fit' 'virtual' representation of the world around us. It is neither complete nor accurate and, since it is a construct, the brain can place the view point anywhere within it it wishes to.

So, in all, whilst I do not doubt your experience, I think the explanation you have found is overly complex, relies on too much that is not in any way evidenced and can be explain in material terms which are evidenced and make sense in terms of what we know.

Which isn't to say you are definitely wrong, you could be right, but the evidence doesn't support and parsimony comes into play.

A really interesting book on all the sorts of things that can go interestingly (for the observer, not the patient!) wrong is Oliver Sacks' "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Who-Mistook-Wife-Picador/dp/0330294911/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320920465&sr=1-3
Well worth a read (and most of his other stuff to, and engaging, curious and informative writer).

I just finished reading 'Self Comes to Mind' by the neurologist Antonio Damasio. It's about how all of the parts of the brain come together to to produce consciousness and the sense of self.

I myself enjoy out of body experiences. I wrote about one in my journal where god takes me out of my body and tries to get me to believe in him. Didn't work because he couldn't speak Swahili.

oh, yes, Damasio has some interesting stuff to say as well. Although I haven't read that one. Is it any more conceptually easy to grasp than Dennet's ideas? Sounds similar, even if Damasio says it is different.

I have trouble understanding Dennet. I don't have a lot of training in philosophy so much of what he says goes over my head. I've restarted reading Consciousness Explained but I get bogged down every time. I found Damasio much easier to understand.

I know what you mean, and me neither.
First time I read it I just let it wash over me to get a general gist. Second time through I was able to use stuff from later on to understand what he was getting at earlier on. 3 readings so far and getting there. I mean it isn't the most intuitive take on things to try and understand anyway. But even then, just getting half what he says opens up some very interesting avenues.

Damasio is able to say things that should have been obvious but that I never thought about. Things that make me think 'Of course, why didn't I think of that.'

For instance, he points out that the brain is more intimately connected to the body, which includes the brain, than it is to the outside world. The first principle is what he calls homeostasis. The brain tries to return to some resting state whenever it is pushed from that state, whether that push comes from an outside source or an internal one.

He didn't say this but it made me think of this thread and others about religion. We just can't deal with unanswered questions so we accept the first answer we hear and stick to it, even if that answer is wrong.

I've always liked Hofstader best.

>>... can't deal with unanswered questions so we accept
the first answer we hear and stick to it... <<

A natural process, probably founded on the evolutionary
methodology where-by those who have survived may
have been acting on a gut principle. Fight or flight is
actually a multiple choice question learned by the
observation of various outcomes in the actions of
'the others'.

Generally we tend to go with the first thought or
impulse that enters our mind. And since we hate not
knowing we also tend to accept the first plausible
explanation that fills the vacuum of our ignorance.


~jwf~

I really must read more of this stuff. It sounds fascinating.

Out of body experiences are, in all likelyhood, altered brain states. That doesn't mean they aren't interesting, but it does mean they are poor evidence for the supernatural.

TRiG.

It is fascinating. And it isn't so much an altered brain state (which is an interesting phrase that many people use but I'm not quite sure what you'd end up with if you unpacked it) but rather an unusual route in processing. I always picture it (inaccurately and somewhat influenced by Dennet) as similar to how in modern computer games you can have a first person or 3rd person view. Or anything else come to that, it is simply a case of moving the camera around within the virtual world. Not an analogy I'd go into too deep as it soon fails (and is in danger of falling into the homunculus error), but as a first concept it helps I think. So yes, OOBEs are bit like pressing the 'z' key

[quote] test [/quote]

test

{quote} test {/quote}

Now, let's see if any of those work...

Right, the one that works is < and > round quote or /quote