User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 88

  1. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    But do they????
    I do think so, yes.

    Personally I think breaks with reality are.... breaks with reality. They are bad. They cause people to act in ways that coincide with their delusion and not the shared experience of everyone else. Doesn't matter if they are socially acceptable or not.
    What is the difference between shared experience of everyone and socially accepted standard (e.g. religion used to be the latter, in some places it still is)?

    I'm not defending religion at all, obviously, I just think it's not as simple as equating it all with psychosis as defined in psychiatry.

    Neither was I, or anyone I knew. Having a vivid imagination is part of being a kid, though. I don't think they particularly care about the reality of their thoughts until they start to have to perform in the world. I often played with my toys as if they were real, and the care of whether or not they were real people never bothered me. I guess if I had been pressured by some mean adult I would have answered that they weren't real, though.

    I dunno. Kids get a free pass on this one. What about babies? Babies can't even talk! How crazy is that?
    Lol @ babies

  2. #72
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    What is the difference between shared experience of everyone and socially accepted standard (e.g. religion used to be the latter, in some places it still is)?
    Well for instance, the results of science apply to every single human, animal, plant, mushroom, protozoa, and bacteria on Earth. That is truly shared experience.

    1.6 billion people can believe Mohammed rode to heaven on a winged horse or whatever, but did that actually happen, are they correct? Just one example.

    A conversation with some imaginary friend God is not shared experience. A bunch of people hearing the same noise in the external environment is.

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    Well for instance, the results of science apply to every single human, animal, plant, mushroom, protozoa, and bacteria on Earth. That is truly shared experience.

    1.6 billion people can believe Mohammed rode to heaven on a winged horse or whatever, but did that actually happen, are they correct? Just one example.

    A conversation with some imaginary friend God is not shared experience. A bunch of people hearing the same noise in the external environment is.
    OK, I see what you mean by "shared experience".

  4. #74
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    My overall intuition is that the average religious person, deep down, doesn't actually believe or is ridden with doubt. Ergo, perhaps they aren't truly psychotic.

    Nonetheless, I'm still just trying to go by definitions, which truly are all we have to go by. If someone deeply, truly believes this stuff, they are by definition psychotic. I think you get that a lot with the fundamentalist Islamic crowd. Those people were so religious/psychotic they flew planes into buildings, or strap on dynamite vests and shit. Are they not psychotic?

    It's one thing, though, to be incorrect about something. That's pretty far removed from conversing with an imaginary friend.
    Actually it's not that they have a deep feeling of not believing it, it's just that their super-ego rewards them when they do something right "in the eyes of god". The Super-ego is where the culture of a society manifests itself in the individual to make the person successfully adopt the beliefs of the society. The little voice that nags "I should be doing" is the super-ego, and the religious experience this by hearing "I should be being Christian (as an adjective for one particular case)" and when this goal is achieved through reasonable and realistic measures by the Ego (You + Most of your Cognition) it makes the person literally feel good with the release of chemicals, most likely dopamine. People who don't have strong Super-Egos or ignore their Super-Egos tend to be more secular or even atheistic (and also experience less guilt due to being partly severed from your conscience, which is based in the super-ego).

    Using the Enneagram, we can discern that types 3,7, and 8 will probably not care about religion in entirety because they are Id driven types, simply bowing to their needs and wants (and considering possible tritype combinations, most likely going to ignore the Super-Ego a little bit). Types 4, 5, 9 are Ego-driven types, so depending on their fixes could be religiously inclined or not. Types 6,2,1 are Super-Ego types, so they will be more inclined to embrace religion if it is presented to them at an early age as a part of culture. Therefore, we can conclude that the most religious type (when under precise circumstances) would be 1-2-6 due to the Ego's desire to fulfill the Super-Ego and the complete ignoring of the Id, that the most idiosyncratic type (when under precise circumstances), when it comes to religion, will most likely be 4-5-9 due to having no Super-Ego types and no Id types, so that they can attempt to perceive reality and religion however they want, as the Ego doesn't really have to fulfill either of the Super-Ego's or the Id's desires because they are partially ignored, and that tritype 3-7-8 will probably not care about religion at all and simply be too busy trying to fulfill the basic "wants" of the Id since it mostly ignores the Super-Ego. This is why the Enneagram is awesome.

  5. #75
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Actually it's not that they have a deep feeling of not believing it, it's just that their super-ego rewards them when they do something right "in the eyes of god". The Super-ego is where the culture of a society manifests itself in the individual to make the person successfully adopt the beliefs of the society. The little voice that nags "I should be doing" is the super-ego, and the religious experience this by hearing "I should be being Christian (as an adjective for one particular case)" and when this goal is achieved through reasonable and realistic measures by the Ego (You + Most of your Cognition) it makes the person literally feel good with the release of chemicals, most likely dopamine. People who don't have strong Super-Egos or ignore their Super-Egos tend to be more secular or even atheistic (and also experience less guilt due to being partly severed from your conscience, which is based in the super-ego).

    Using the Enneagram, we can discern that types 3,7, and 8 will probably not care about religion in entirety because they are Id driven types, simply bowing to their needs and wants (and considering possible tritype combinations, most likely going to ignore the Super-Ego a little bit). Types 4, 5, 9 are Ego-driven types, so depending on their fixes could be religiously inclined or not. Types 6,2,1 are Super-Ego types, so they will be more inclined to embrace religion if it is presented to them at an early age as a part of culture. Therefore, we can conclude that the most religious type (when under precise circumstances) would be 1-2-6 due to the Ego's desire to fulfill the Super-Ego and the complete ignoring of the Id, that the most idiosyncratic type (when under precise circumstances), when it comes to religion, will most likely be 4-5-9 due to having no Super-Ego types and no Id types, so that they can attempt to perceive reality and religion however they want, as the Ego doesn't really have to fulfill either of the Super-Ego's or the Id's desires because they are partially ignored, and that tritype 3-7-8 will probably not care about religion at all and simply be too busy trying to fulfill the basic "wants" of the Id since it mostly ignores the Super-Ego. This is why the Enneagram is awesome.
    Honestly I am more inclined to agree with @valaki when he said "why bring personality type into this whole mess" basically. I just think it overcomplicates things and is unnecessarily speculative. You're out on a limb, for sure, and it winds up kind of being like a dog in a fight with really big floppy ears. Gives the opponent something easy to grab onto and use against you.

    Same with the id-ego-superego stuff. That just sounds really shaky to me, especially applying it to something like this. Maybe you're right, and I don't doubt there is at least some truth in it all, but I just think it is a bit more convoluted than is actually needed.

    *

    Unrelated note, here's an interesting little idea. What if I woke up the next morning thoroughly convinced that I were being watched over and could communicate with Elvis Presley--that his spirit was alive and well in some alternate realm and had chosen me to contact? Not only that, but I went around to my friends, coworkers, and even strangers trying to spread the word to them about how I was communicating with Elvis, what his message for the world is, and how they too should attempt to establish a relationship with Elvis?

    I would have obviously lost my mind. People would quickly become concerned and even active in forcing me to seek therapy for my delusion.

    Now, ask yourself, is religion any different?

    We need to get beyond the fact that it is taboo to criticize it and it is socially widespread. We need to look at what it is at its core, what's really going on in the individual religious mind. Because I can safely tell you, I personally am not in communication with any otherly entity, and if I thought I were, that would make me a crazy person.

    As I said above, I am aware of and fully acknowledge the existence of mystical experiences. Unfortunately, they hardly prove anything. They are basically on the same level as dreaming, as far as how much we know about them and how much we can truly say about them. I absolutely would love for science to figure out more about the phenomenon, and I think in the coming years it surely will, as we continue to unlock these doors in the mind with things like entheogens. I don't doubt that if all goes well for civilization, the study of religious experience itself will blossom and become an important, fruitful part of living.

    But we can't just jump to conclusions yet. We can't just say we know because we want to really badly. Indeed, life is far from what it will be in the future if we continue to improve. One day we could truly live in a sort of heaven, one that might have been what religious folks always had in mind, but perhaps even better, as what they often seemed to imagine sounds rather boring - sitting on a cloud with a harp or something for eternity.

    Speculation is speculation, and it may deserve to be rigorously investigated. Until then, let's call it what it is.

  6. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Actually it's not that they have a deep feeling of not believing it
    My sister is kind of like that actually. That's why I said it. But yes she does have a superego too. Stronger than mine lol. She obeyed my father and then later her husband because it's her "duty" as a daughter and as a wife.


    (...) This is why the Enneagram is awesome.
    Well this isn't actually enneagram, the id-ego-superego thing. It comes from psychoanalysis theory.

    In my case I believe it's me being uninhibited about stuff (you call that Id) *and* it's my way of thinking as well. My thinking doesn't fit religion. If you want to get so deep into personality theories, part of that thinking would be akin to Se for example. The idea of "God" never made sense to me, it was never real to me even though I received religious upbringing. I kind of just neglected all the religious stuff most of the time, it left me completely unaffected most of the time. It's however an oversimplification to attribute all of my attitude to religion to Se because I didn't explicitly reject religion with whatever you can categorize as Se, I did that by forming my own independent opinion when I got old enough to understand things deeper. I've used part of that reasoning in this thread. Have fun categorizing it in MBTI :P (I don't know what it is)

    But I agree with @zago, this is also some speculation and as I said before I wouldn't try to analyze everything with a personality theory that is intended to have a narrower scope than that, actually.

  7. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Oh and yeah, @grey_beard, have you really been unable to respond to my points? ;P

  8. #78
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Oh and yeah, @grey_beard, have you really been unable to respond to my points? ;P
    I'm at work today trying to fix a gefarhliches computer program or two.
    I was at work a lot of yesterday too.

    I'm logged in but bounce back 'n forth between here & my work -- not good for a train of coherent thought, and I don't want to pull enough out of the work yet to give strong considered answers.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  9. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    I'm at work today trying to fix a gefarhliches computer program or two.
    I was at work a lot of yesterday too.

    I'm logged in but bounce back 'n forth between here & my work -- not good for a train of coherent thought, and I don't want to pull enough out of the work yet to give strong considered answers.
    Alright, whenever you got time

  10. #80
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    ...incidentally, Guy 1 forgot (or excluded ex hypothesi) the possibility that God really did do it Himself, by means not shown. ("Any sufficiently advanced miracle is indistinguishable from technology.")
    Guy 2 is implicitly (and inconsistently) assuming that God must work only through natural means.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    So what? It's (God doing it) just one of many unlikely possibilities.

    And why is it inconsistent if Guy 2 assumes "God" would work only through natural means? It's no worse for an assumption than assuming that "God" works through other means too. Or the assumption that a "God" really exists in this specific form.
    1) What grounds *do* you have for calling God doing it just one of many unlikely possibilities? It's a subtle error, and it sounds like you're channeling Hume here.
    The classic counterexample is if my local paper reported I won the Powerball, you should immediately discount it, because the odds of winning the Powerball are *far* less than that of a reporter making an error in a story.
    (The canonical retort is that we KNOW people have won the Powerball, but we don't KNOW any miracles; and in fact, miracles can't happen, because they are violations of the laws of nature.)
    But that lead to circular reasoning: any fresh report or account of even an alleged miracle must be excluded by Hume's reasoning, since the odds of a miracle are less than that of the eyewitnesses lying.
    Therefore, one never gets a chance to develop *any* non-zero probability of a miracle...
    The problem is that you are assuming up front that the allegedly miraculous event should have the rules of ordinary life applied to it when calculating "how likely" -- the reason you can't is NOT that the believers want special pleading to make up for the monstrous disadvantages in their philosophical contentions, but rather (this is related to my next point), that with the intervention of God, you simply cannot CONTROL for that variable rigorously -- it is the very assumptions which underlie classical experimentation which are possibly being suspended. Quoting the legal regulations about stopping at a red light simply don't cover the case when there is a live policeman with a whistle in the intersection, using direct authority to override the ordinary rules.

    As far as the assumptions about God, the problem is that God is (by definition, as it were) supernatural *and* sentient, capable of exercising choice. You have neither prior evidentiary, nor prior theological/theoretical grounds for limiting God to working through natural means *exclusively*; such a condition is both a hidden axiom, *and* the less general case. Even those who claim God can work through supernatural means do not claim that He is limited exclusively to those means, or that he does not employ humans as representatives, emissaries, or servants/taskmasters.


    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    it *appears* you are relying implicitly upon philsophical naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism.




    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    So what, is that worse than overt religion?
    It is both different, and petitio principii.



    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Now praytell, what's wrong with that approach of devaluing the supernatural exactly? Nothing. You just seem to be really distorting the reasoning of people who don't believe in miracles. It's not about dismissing and recasting stuff, it's about an honest attempt to find the most realistic explanation. And yes, it does come with the assumption that God and miracles aren't realistic at this point. This is no worse an assumption than assuming that God does exist. Do you think it's a more arbitrary assumption or what?
    Those who believe in God, are not thereby compelled to believe in any specific account of a miracle, nor to subscribe to any particular model purporting to describe how that miracle (if accepted as historical) happened to have been achieved. There position gains the strength of being the more general case: at the cost of insisting on a set of (absolutely KNOWN to be fixed) metaphysical boundary conditions;
    often scientists have the (felt, but rarely explicitly voiced) apprehension that by admitting any possibility of God at all, the very possibility of the efficacy and usefulness of science has necessarily been surrendered, much as (say) certain Biblical literalists get the vapours when textual discrepancies, or problems in translation in different copies of Biblical codices are shown (e.g. Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses with horns on his head because of a passage of how Moses appeared with the Glory of God resting on his head getting mistranslated as "horns"...)





    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    You can assign any number to that likelihood but none of them will be any "better" than the others.
    Except zero, as it commits one philosophically in advance.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    However in my worldview, certain numbers seem to create inconsistencies with how things actually seem to be. So I decided to go for a low number for the answer for "how likely it is that God intervenes in such a fashion".
    This fear is unfounded, provided that God either agrees (so to speak) to not go tromping around willy-nilly in EVERYTHING; this can be accomplished either by
    a) staying out of labs for the most part, only getting involved and interfering to render aid to those in need
    b) keeping the *number* of interferences rare, so that any instance which happen to step on an experiment can be written off by the scientist as "unknown experimental error".

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Really, I do not even need to bring science into my reasoning about that. Consider how the world works on its own so nicely, you can even assume that God created the laws of nature etc etc. Now, if we assume God has indeed done some miracle somewhere, will it not violate the rules God (or not God, doesn't matter) created in the first place? Yes it will. For what reason? No reason. I do not accept it as a "reason" that God is this unfair discriminating kind of God who picks on one nation and favours another nation on a small planet in the vast Universe. This kind of action ends up being inconsistent in my opinion thus I reject the idea that it's highly possible that there was a miracle by God.
    You've touched on another one of the ingredients to the misunderstandings here.
    Science works by assuming "equal a priori probabilities" that is, when entertaining hypotheses, one should evince no bias in advance.
    Now this is useful when one is trying to keep one's ear to the ground in order to not throw away finely-grained, but actually significant ("signifying" some effect), experimental effects.
    But the problem is that this over time is taken by the scientist as some sort of necessary *indication* that "the Universe ITSELF" is like that.
    But correlation is not causation; and absence of evidence is not (sufficient) evidence of absence -- merely an indication.
    It may hold STRONGER in the natural world, if the assumption of fixed natural laws is true: the more rigorously a law is demonstrated, and over a wider variety of conditions, the more one feels ("gains assurance") it is likely to be true; but if dealing with an explicitly non-corporeal entity, moreover one possessed of independent will and purpose, one can never guarantee when or why it will act --
    at least not by experment; such is only going to happen by personal acqauintance.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Good luck refuting my reasoning. It's your choice to believe in an unfair God, I wish you luck to that. I will not do that myself.
    He's better than unfair; He's merciful.

    I'll reply to the rest later. My wife is making bedroom eyes.


    Unrelated BS about a BS down-to-earth/overly concrete/unspiritual unfair human-made image of God




    It's a pretty bad strategy trying to explain your viewpoint by an analogy. Analogies are never perfect. Why not instead deal with the real thing directly? Why avoid it by using imperfect analogies?




    1) yes it would be nice if it could eliminate false negatives, I agree on that one
    2) do you know of better tools? we can only use our human thinking so don't expect anything perfect.
    3) why would this have to explain God stuff?

    OK I'm done for now.[/QUOTE]
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

Similar Threads

  1. Sciencebucks.com, the kickstarter of science funding?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-27-2012, 01:48 PM
  2. the Pinnacle of Science Fiction
    By Kingfisher in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 07:32 PM
  3. [NT] Worshiping at the altar of science.
    By ObeyBunny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 02:02 AM
  4. Informal Discussion on the Philosophy of Science
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 12:23 PM
  5. What is the purpose of Science Fiction?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO