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

Ben: "If you're searching for unequivocal 'scientific' evidence, I suspect there's none."

? What did science ever do to you?

Actually, it was me who said that.

<? What did science ever do to you?>

Well, if you were trying to discuss the (choosing words carefully) development of the creatures of the world, you might bring to bear a set of tools that you've found appropriate in the past, yes? And if someone attempted to introduce a biblical/creationist analysis, what would be your reaction? , perhaps?

Science never did nuffin' to me, guv, but it has been misapplied in many contexts, and this is one of them, IMO.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

NAITA:

'Every part of the brain is affected by EM, the experiment focused the EM on the temporal lobes to get the described effect. Supernatural beings don't enter into it when we look at the scientific part of the question, and introducing them only confuses the picture.'

The experiment with the EM helmet reproduced the effects of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE), which is basically uncontrolled electrical 'crackling' in the temporal lobes. That's why they were focussing upon the temporal lobes, and not anywhere else in the brain. TLE can produce vivid visions, and even voices in your head. The temporal lobes are responsible for emotions such as joy and awe; visual association (re: religious icons); speech perception; and the detection of the boundary between what's real and what's not, what's coming from inside you, or from the external world. When all of this controlled regulation goes haywire, as with TLE, you can imagine the effects. In fact, we've heard about the effects from the devoutly religious.

But when it comes down to it, I agree with Ben. We could actually be witnessing the interaction of people with God, rather than seeing people's mind invent Him. With neurotheology there is no way to tell either way for certain. But as an atheist, I'll make my own conclusions.

Ste


A933635 - Neurotheology - The God-Shaped Hole in the Head

Yes. I think you need the germ of an idea and TLE to propegate this (Visions, voices etc.). Either gods were set up to explain observations of the cosmos, or a quick way to make money.

Ben - ""1) If the universe is something we can call "god," then why call it "god," when we've already got a word that describes it, without the mythological connotations: universe. How is the word "universe" unsuitable?"

Because it does not include the concepts of spirituality, spritual experience, spiritual development, or spiritual growth.

And your next question is?"

My next question is, what do you mean by spirituality, spiritual experience, spiritual development, and spiritual growth? What is a spirit?

"I am currently assuming that the relationship between us and the form of god that I am proposing is analagous to the relationship between a cell and the body, or a bee and the hive." - Bee and hive, let's run with that one, for now. If one person is the bee, then civilization would be the hive. How does your god differ from civilization? Would "civilization" be a better term than "god"?

I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to that bit, but let's take things one step at a time.

Wonko: "Hey girls and guys, this is the FFFF, there is no god." - I think you've got the wrong idea about the FFFF. It was never meant to be an atheist-only club, and never has been... there's over here: A953255. Perhaps the fault was mine in the naming... the third F should probably have stood for Fundamentalism. Even atheists can be fundamentalists.

Hi, it's me: butting in again, OK?



In this context, perhaps "society" better expresses what we're talking about than "civilisation"? Anyway, Blatherskite, I think you have correctly observed that the relationship between an individual and God is very similar to that between an individual and society. But of course God and society are not the same thing.

It's quite a good analogy though. There are many layers of 'sub-societies' within society, and an individual will usually belong to a number of these. The individual could be seen to be 'customising' society in this way, to suit her needs. Something similar can apply to one's relationship with God, I think.

BTW, I'm still thinking about "what is the evidence for God?", although it's proving to be a toughie! One thing that has occured to me is that the scenario I'm advocating is, in essence, the Gaia hypothesis broadened to cover the whole universe, instead of a mere planet. So I guess the arguments that apply to Gaia (and I don't know them in an depth at all!) probably apply here too.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Wonko, we are not speaking of genes, we are speaking of behaviour.

You said: "It is very important for the mother to have children from many fathers in case one of them is not ok. That's why women loose interest in the father of their first child"

You are saying that a specific behaviour pattern is always true in all cases, and arguing that there is a putative survival benefit for it, and that it is therefore genetically controlled.



There are three weaknesses there.

1) Is the behaviour pattern true in all cases? I challenged you on that, and you seem to think that it is. How the hell do you know?

2) You argue that this behaviour bestows a survival benefit. It may do so, but only a minimal one. As I said, it is only in the interest of the woman that someone should help her raise the children - hence the human drive to fall in love. It is irrelevant either way who is the father of the child, and it is beneficial to her that the father should be an alpha-male, with good genetic inheritance. At best there is a slight survival advantage to straying, not an absolute one.

3) You are implying that this aspect of human behaviour (ie the retention or loss of sexual interest in the father of your first-born) is dictated absolutely by genetics. Now it is notoriously difficult to establish when the behaviour of specific individuals is a result of nature or nurture, upbringing and peer pressure or genetic code. There clearly IS a genetic predisposition towards certain behaviours, but that is all it is, a predisposition.



So I have some specific questions for you:

1) Is this behaviour pattern true in all cases, of all women, all the time? How the *hell* do you know?

2) What "I'dont want to have sex with the father of my first child" gene do you mean? Or did I miss some announcement about the human genotype? (I could well have done, I have been away a lot).



And finally:

"Where do you think do all the headaches come from? "

Being married to arrogant little s**ts who tell them what to think and do, I should imagine.

B
*who has no children, has never had a burning desire for children, and therefore - genetically - should not exist*

Hi Wonko... a diverting theory, but not true of all ...I'm very happy with the father of my first child, and am not prone to headaches

P-c: "the scenario I'm advocating is, in essence, the Gaia hypothesis broadened to cover the whole universe, instead of a mere planet." - Does this include inanimate/inorganic bits of the universe, or is it restricted to living things?

Apropos of nothing, curiosity got me counting the number of referenced researchers on the homepage. It turns out we have 99 members to date.

P-c:

BtM:

The Buddha is in the stone, grasshopper! I'm not sure ... your hair and fingernails are inanimate, and I've read that even clay has some of the (most basic) features of 'life'. I think, just to be on the safe side, we shouldn't rule out any part of the universe. How do we know which bits are necessary for the emergence or maintenance of God?

It seems every question here spawns several others, each more vague - and more difficult to answer - than the last. Even obvious and unambiguous terms, such as you have used, BtM, become capable of embracing all sorts of vagueness. This is hard work; am I getting anywhere?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Blatherskite - You start off quoting me, and then ask some questions: "I am currently assuming that the relationship between us and the form of god that I am proposing is analagous to the relationship between a cell and the body, or a bee and the hive." - Bee and hive, let's run with that one, for now.

Ben: Damn! That is the weaker analogy. I prefer the braincell/brain analogy, because brains have sentience and consciousness, and I like to think that the kind of god I am suggesting here is sentient and conscious in ways we cannot begin to comprehend or apprehend. Can I skip the bees?

BtM: "If one person is the bee, then civilization would be the hive. How does your god differ from civilization?"

Ben: Oh, ok, bees if you insist. The difference between the god I am suggesting, and civilisation is the meta-sentience, or uber-sentience, or super-sentience or impressive-prefix-of-choice-sentience which I alluded to a couple of paragraphs ago. As I said, I don't really like the hive analogy, but I was reading "Lords and Ladies" last week, and bees were on my mind.

BtM: Would "civilization" be a better term than "god"?

Ben: No. But it *is* a very nice word, BtM.

You also say:

BtM: My next question is, what do you mean by spirituality, spiritual experience, spiritual development, and spiritual growth? What is a spirit?

Ben: Ah. Damn. This is where we are going to spiral back and back and back through the some of the slipperiest words we have. Here goes though - and these are off the top of my head, because I have not tried to put this into words before.

What do I mean by spirituality? - A world-view which is not purely materialistic, which includes within it the concept that there is more to human beings, (and probably that there is more to animals too), than the merely physical. I hestitate to take it much further and I am not suggesting that there are other mysterious forces acting on our world and on our lives.

What do I mean by spiritual experience? - An apprehension of that which is not purely physical, an experience of numinescense. There is a risk that hysteria, an overactive imagination, or an inability to understand the laws of probability can be mistaken for spiritual experiences, but I think that there are valid spiritual experiences over and beyond these non-spiritual ones. There is signal as well as noise.

What do I mean by spiritual growth? - Some spiritual stances are more mature than others. I think most people who have met mystics (the genuine artical, not the gurus with Rolls Royces and groupies) can see that these people are more mature in some specific ways than the fundamentalists who blindly cite the bible or their mentors without question. It is that questioning path within a spiritual context that I am referring to.

What is a spirit? - I would argue that we all are spirits. I could go on for ages here, burbling about my world-view, (or one of my world-views), but I am tired, it is late, and I doubt it is particularly interesting. And who says my world-view is more accurate than anyone elses? It is just a way of looking at things which works for me.

B

P-C - we seem to be diverging slightly here, which is interesting.

B

Efrida - "Hi Wonko... a diverting theory, but not true of all ...I'm very happy with the father of my first child, and am not prone to headaches"

Let me get in here before Wonko does, and tell you that I KNOW that this will not always be the case. I will leave it up to you whether I come to that conclusion from a rigid adherence to my own ideas, or from some mystical source within the ethersphere.

B
*who hopes that everyone realises that the above was typed with forked tongue firmly in both cheeks*

Ah the joys of language! I don't believe in mysterious forces either, which is why I consider myself a materialist. Not, of course, in the sense of being addicted to money, power and status, none of which are material anyway, but in the metaphysical sense. The purpose of which is to remove metaphysics from the discussion, as it serves no purpose, leaving the field free for psychological, ethical and other useful discourses.

The main problem with the *word* spirituality, is, of course, that if you use it, a lot of people (present company excepted, of course) will immediately assume that you ARE talking about other mysterious forces.

Noggin

*waves hello to Ben*... erm...when you say "this will not always be the case", what do you mean exactly?

Hi Ben,



Life time experience. You know, there's a lot of fog out there, generated to distract from reality. I've blown the fog away by drawing a line of logic between genes and behavior. It fits so well that I'm now able to predict human behavior, even in women. I do understand where the fog comes from, why it is there and how everthing fits into the Theory of Evolution. The only thing I don't know is how to change that. But I've found a way of life which seems to work, that is polyamory.

Always, all the time? I'd say 99%.



Well, you didn't miss the announcement, you've just been a historical eye witness here on h2g2!

<"Where do you think do all the headaches come from? "
Being married to arrogant little s**ts who tell them what to think and do, I should imagine.>

Now that is a good example of the self-deception gene at work.

Ben, are you sorry you don't have children, or did you want it that way?


Elfrida, you'd be happy if it were that way, but sorry, I don't believe it. Women tend to create their own reality and forget that their partners once had their own.

Well, were're talking at a very personal level here, as we don't have demographic data at hand. I want to tell you that I don't want to hurt you and that I do understand that life can can harsh sometimes (ask me!). But in order to lift the fog it is neccessary to locate the source of it, and that's what I'm trying to do.

Elfrida: "*waves hello to Ben*... erm...when you say "this will not always be the case", what do you mean exactly?"

I was demonstrating the point that I know absolutely nothing about you other than what you have said in this thread. I cannot therefore say anything credible about your life, particularly about reasons for your past actions or predictions of future actions, and that anything I do say on the subject actually says more about me than about you.

I put in the PS to indicate that I said it for effect, not because I believe it to be true.

Wonko - the irritiating thing is that to some extent I agree with you. I agree that neither men nor women are naturally monogamous, though it is clear that some men and some women maintain monogamous relationships for life. I agree that there are survival benefits to not being monogamous, but that these benefits are subtly different for men and for women.

Where we part company is the explicit statement that 99% of women will always and inevitbaly loose interest sexually in the father of their first child. Previously it was ALL women, so what makes the difference to your hypothesised 1% there, Wonko?

You also do not mention the far greater survival benefit to men for straying. Men benefit far more from infidelity than women do, and it seems that they *are* unfaithful far more than women are.

You take an incredibly deterministic view of the world, which is fine - I think that we have less conscious free will than we like to think we have - but you also evangelise. Evangelism - the drive to convert - is profoundly offensive wherever it takes place, and it is ususally a symptom of underlying doubts. As BtM mentioned, there are fundamentalist atheists around, and you Wonko are perilously close to being one of them. The need that evangelists and fundamentalists have to convince others is very often a reflection of their need to convince themselves.

So do me a favour eh? My genes are wired for spiritual belief - stop trying to convert me to your particular brand of atheism.

And finally a couple of questions.

Why do you need to convince yourself?

And at what point did your wife loose interest in having sex wtih you?

Ben

Hi Wonko...of course you're entirely at liberty to disbelieve me when I say I'm as in love today with the man I married 17 years ago as I was on the day I walked into a darkened studio theatre from a bright sunny day and heard his gorgeous voice reading from Lorca's 'Blood Wedding'. (A case of 'love at first sound' I guess, rather than sight, a phenomenon no doubt undermined by whole truckloads of demographical data!)
As for 'constructing our own reality': I don't expect my partner's reality to be the same as mine, either past or present. I don't experience my intimate relationships through any sort of 'fog'; it's more the case that closeness and getting to know one another more deeply is like opening a window onto a constantly changing, ever-revealing landscape that stretches further than the eye can see, and has no discernible end

Men are more likely to stray from their partners, I think, because it's easier for them to do so. It's also advantageous in an evolutionary sense for a man to impregnate as many different women as possible, to spread his genes out. Women can't do this so much, because while a man can just have sex and move on once conception has occurred, the woman has to wait nine months to have the baby, then however else long it takes for the womb to recover so she can conceive again.

Thus in some ways it seems quite unusual that genetics say we should have a 50/50 split of women to men. We don't, of course, but that's probably just because women live longer (or don't get themselves killed doing stupid things so often), but surely the human race, in theory, could survive just as well with 80% women... of course, monogamy wouldn't be an option for the men, but the women would only need to have less than two babies each.

I suppose it's dangerous in that the men could all get wiped out more easily though... hmm.

Ben, thanks for that I wasn't sure whether your statement was about Wonko's theory not continuing to last, or my marriage! Ta for clearing it up...
When I make judgements, too, they're more about me than the other person, of course...
I don't usually discuss my close relationships in 'public', but did feel it was important to challenge a particular theory that was at odds with my lived experience.
In Ingmar Bergman's "Scenes from a Marriage" one character says to another: "We are emotional illiterates". In the struggle to find a language for feelings, there are bound to be misunderstandings. I still think it's worth discussing but am wondering if the light in here isn't too harsh for tender emotions.