Questions to explore:

1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)?
2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages?
3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness?
4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? — 3017amen

My responses in italics:

1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)? I don't have anything to offer here.

2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages? Curiosity is does not seem to be just a human motivator. I heard somewhere that cats are curious too. It has always seemed to me to be a very good strategy for living in a world where things can change quickly. Knowing what's going on around you is important when you might have to make a decision immediately. That's my intuition. I don't have any specific knowledge. Generally, I am reluctant to jump to conclusions about what behaviors are built in and which are learned.

3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? What we call "reality" is a function of the outside world, but also of human biology, nervous system, psychology, etc. What that means to me is that reality is human in a fundamental way. Religion recognizes that while "rational" approaches don't.

4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? I don't think religious experience is any different from other everyday experience.

You are forcing the obvious and passe into a discussion. — god must be atheist

3017amen - Don't listen to gmba - Your questions were reasonable.

Where does it say that in the article? — Marty

Here's another link, to an article in the Harvard Business Review - "Decisions and Desire:"

https://hbr.org/2006/01/decisions-and-desire

Here's some text from the article:

Damasio and his colleagues have since studied over 50 patients with brain damage like Elliot’s who share this combination of emotional and decision-making defects. And researchers have found that patients with injuries to parts of the limbic system, an ancient group of brain structures important in generating emotions, also struggle with making decisions. There’s something critical to decision making in the conversation between emotion and reason in the brain, but what?

Call it gut. Or hunch. Or, more precisely, “prehunch,” to use Damasio’s term. In a famous series of experiments designed by Damasio’s colleague Antoine Bechara at the University of Iowa, patients with Elliot’s emotion-dampening type of brain damage were found to be unusually slow to detect a losing proposition in a card game.

In the game, players picked cards from red and blue decks, winning and losing play money with each pick. The players were hooked up to lie-detector-like devices that measure skin conductance response, or CSR, which climbs as your stress increases and your palms sweat. Most players get a feeling that there’s something amiss with the red decks after they turn over about 50 cards, and after 30 more cards, they can explain exactly what’s wrong. But just ten cards into the game, their palms begin sweating when they reach for the red decks. Part of their brains know the red deck is a bad bet, and they begin to avoid it—even though they won’t consciously recognize the problem for another 40 cards and won’t be able to explain it until 30 cards after that. Long before they have a hunch about the red deck, a subconscious prehunch warns them away from it.

Though the brain-damaged patients eventually figured out that the red decks were rigged against them, they never developed palm-dampening CSRs. And, even though they consciously knew better, they continued to pick red cards. What were they missing? The injured parts of their brains in the prefrontal cortex seemed unable to process the emotional signals that guide decision making. Without this emotion interpreter pushing them in the right direction (toward the winning decks), these patients were left spinning their wheels, unable to act on what they knew. They couldn’t decide, apparently, what was in their own best interest. You could say they lacked good judgment.

All it shows is that sometimes we use emotions to make judgements. That's not controverisal. — Marty

No. It shows that without emotions, we are unable to make any decisions of any sort; what to eat for dinner, whether to eat dinner, what socks to wear. People frozen into immobility by indecision. None of this is controversial. This is controversial - "Tis not contrary to reason to imagine us being motivated by reason alone..." Actually, that's not controversial either, it's just wrong.

This is not a philosophical question. You say it's right, but science says it's wrong. Reason says it's wrong. Rationality says it's wrong. Logic says it's wrong. T Clark says it's wrong.

I am with Dewey in not being overfond of certain uses of the word 'true'. Acting on warranted assertion - or a confidently held fact - following inquiry as described - that makes sense to me.

It is true that what we consider 'true' or what we think we 'know' may change. — Amity

You've given me an opening to use, yet again, my favorite quote from one of my favorite authors, Stephen J. Gould. I think this is the perfect pragmatic view of truth.

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

I see thought or thinking as a tool but not just for practical decision-making but also leaning 'towards power' or creativity or energy. It includes imagination...which is not particularly 'concrete'. — Amity

Quick response - power, creativity, energy, imagination - all in service of "what do I do now." More thoughtful response - Let me think about this. I'll see if I can back that up or come up with more.

AAs are great people. — synthesis

At first I wasn't sure if you were being ironic. Donald Trump said "MAGA loves the black people," and "I have a great relationship with the blacks."

Compare 1960 with today. This country has become an economic basket-case over the past 60 years (trading equity for debt), it's institutions are horribly dys-functional and corrupt, and the culture is downright dystopian. — synthesis

We certainly have problems. I don't think things are as dire as you do. I'd say "we'll see," but I won't be around for that. My children will see.

So do I, including family members. So what? It's still terrible, terrible judgment. — Xtrix

I think I understand why some people support Donald Trump and I can sympathize with their motivations. Claiming that Biden stole the election shows bad judgement, but I don't think voting for Trump necessarily does.

We don't have to take this any further. I've had my say and I can't think of anything to add.

So the idea that people with terrible judgment also are more likely to make armchair claims about physics being “bad” is “baloney” to you? Seems almost like a truism to me. — Xtrix

What really set me off was you bringing Donald Trump into it. I have friends whom I like, respect, and trust who voted for him. Add to that the fact that your comment is an obvious attack on the person you are arguing with. I can never figure out whether that sort of thing is an ad hominem attack or just an insult. You're not going to convince him. Why not drop it?

You must admit, our generation (baby boomers) have been a complete disaster. — synthesis

I don't see it that way. I have no longing for the days when men were men and all the negroes stayed on the other side of the tracks where they belonged. I think the main thing wrong with our generation is that there are so many of us.

Any moderators looking in, my comments about negroes are intended as irony.

Look at what we are handing our children and theirs...a country so beautiful, so wealthy, so full of promise, turned into a crack-addict/alcoholic passed-out in the gutter. — synthesis

I don't see it that way either. I've never been a big fan of hell-in-a-handbasket philosophizing.

I'm not really sure how that article proves that all of our decisions require prior desires/ some prior disposition or emotive backing. I'm also apprehensive of any identity claim in neuroscience. — Marty

I provide pretty definitive evidence that your philosophical position is wrong, and you shrug your shoulders and say "science/schmience." It's hard to take your argument seriously.

Thought is for action, if the object of one your idea don't have any effects that have pratical bearings, it might aswell be meaningless. Using this maxim ground your thoughts on the pratical, on the problem-solving and prediction etc. — Nzomigni

This is a good expression of what "pragmatism" means to me.

One of the similarities in the "pragmatist" schools are that they don't consider the metaphysics, — Nzomigni

I don't think this is right. The pragmatic view of truth and meaning is metaphysics.

I'm glad you started this discussion of pragmatism. I haven't read Dewey. I'll go find some.

Just as Amendment XXII limited the number of terms to avoid a dictator, a new amendment can rid the US of the gerontocracy to which it has been subjected. — gikehef947

Ha! Us gerontocrats are in charge!! It will never happen. You will need the support of 2/3 of Congress and the legislatures of 38 states, all filled with old guys like me.

Fun as usual.

Although I generally don't characterize my philosophical leanings, it would be silly for me not to acknowledge that the term "pragmatism" fits me like a glove. As they say, if the glove fits, you must admit it. I liked the BBC text that @Amity quoted, in particular:

It took knowledge to be meaningful only when coupled with action. The function of thought was taken not to represent or "mirror" the world, but instead was considered an instrument or tool for prediction, problem-solving, and action. In this way, it was a philosophy deeply embedded in the reality of life, concerned firstly with the individual's direct experience of the world they inhabit.

I often look at this from a slightly different direction when I think about "truth." "What is true" is not the real question of philosophy and all other human concern. The real question is "what do I do now?" Truth is just a tool we use to figure that out. I guess you can't get any more pragmatic than that.

By the way, Libravox (Libravox.com) has a reading of James' "Pragmatism" that I really like. It's free. Libravox uses volunteer readers. The one for "Pragmatism" has a really good voice if you can get past the fact that he is not a native speaker and has some odd pronunciations.

The fact that we, humanity, do this does not render it our province to he exclusion of all else, much less All. — James Riley

Again, I think we've pared this down to a question of language.

Good or bad comes from what Man wants — New2K2

As you can probably tell from my posts, I agree with you.

You don't think animals measure their environment? And is what we care about the only measure? — James Riley

Just to make sure you and I are using the same meaning, the definition of "measure" I think the line is talking about is "a standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment." The important word there for this discussion is "comparison." When we measure, we compare one thing, what is being measured, with another, a measure. So, no, I don't think most animals do that. It strikes me that it takes a strong capacity for abstraction. And yes, when we "take the measure" of something, we hold it up to and compare it to what we care about.

And where does the "we" come from? By that, I mean why are you and I, both "man" aligned together in measure under the heading of "man", instead of being pitted against each other in our measurement as would, I guess, be man and animal? Wouldn't it be better to say "Each individual is the measure of all things?" — James Riley

Measurement is a matter of social convention. We, humanity, decide on how to measure by what standards, except here in the US where we'll never use that Communistic, depraved metric system.

I don't suppose we would measure anything that didn't have an effect on our lives, but I don't see how that makes us the measure of all things? Are you saying "measurer" or "measurers" or simply "measure" as used in my initial post? Regardless, we measure. But that doesn't mean we are the measure of all things. — James Riley

At this point, I think we've reduced this to a question of language preference. There's probably no further we can take it than that. I say "tomato" and you say kg-m/s^2.

TC I have always held this as an intuitive belief. Humans think like humans for human reasons - the world and us is to some extent 'created' by our corporeal strengths and limitations. — Tom Storm

Agreed.

Just my not-overly-erudite opinion, but I think quite a bit of "us" is factory pre-installed--don't take offense, Ma, at the factory metaphor. Every other animal seems to have built-in behavior patterns, and I don't see a way that we would NOT have built ins. — Bitter Crank

I think you and I agree. If I were born today, I'd ask for factory installed blue-tooth and undercoating. I've noticed things getting a bit rusty lately.

What I see in your entire post (correct me if I am wrong) is that humans are humans; that humans are stuck being human. I can agree with that. But that does not transmogrify us into the measure of all that we measure. — James Riley

Never, never say "correct me if I am wrong" in a response to me. Surprisingly enough, yes, you are wrong. Well, let's just say I disagree with you. We didn't "transmogrify" into the measure of all things. We invented measurement. Measurement is human enterprise. Why else would we care about measurement except as it applies to ourselves? What would we ever measure except things that have an effect on our lives?

By my calculation, I am a bit less than 2 ^10-16 light years tall. That's about 2,000,000,000 nanometers. Please don't check my math.

I did not make man the measure of all things when I said I found a blob of clay to be good. I am not the measure of all things, nor do I speak for All. — James Riley

Whether I am the measure of all things, it is a fundamental assumption of my philosophy that humanity is. Basic units for measurement are at human scale. We measure things in feet, horses in hands. Of course, we measure power in horsepower, so maybe humanity and equinity are the measures of all things. If you don't believe in an absolute moral standards, as I don't, human value is a product of human thinking and feeling. As I noted in posts earlier today in another thread, established science indicates that humans develop a moral sense at a very early age, as early as three months. This indicates that, to a large extent, our moral thinking and behavior is inborn. Something similar is also true of language and maybe number.

Beyond that, it makes sense to me that our understanding of the world, reality itself, is a function of our particular human nervous system and perceptual organs. I'm not ready to defend that position at this point.

We are so constituted that there probably IS a moral inclination at birth -- not a preference for moral vs. immoral, but rather a brain structure (and species habit) that will lead to people having fear, guilt, and comfort connected to their behavior. How does this work? — Bitter Crank

As I noted in a previous post on this thread, there is strong evidence that babies as young as three months can make clear choices that it makes sense to call "moral," and others that it makes sense to call "biased." I think that shows that human moral judgements are strongly built-in. That doesn't negate the importance of learning and socialization as children grow older.

You didn’t come close to understanding what I wrote. — Xtrix

You were straight-forward and clear in what you had to say. I've complimented the clarity of your writing before.

it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.” — Xtrix

This is baloney - self-righteous, passive-aggressive crap. I agree with you that conspiracy theories are almost always wrong and wrong-headed. At the same time, I've known smart, perceptive people who believe some of them. They're just wrong. Questioning their judgement on this particular issue is reasonable, questioning their psychological motivation is irrelevant. Argue the question.

Nice response - common sense defended. The National Enquirer magazine's slogan used to be, 'Enquiring minds want to know.' Dressing up yellow journalism as a virtue. Having known a lot of folks who enjoy a conspiracy theory (and I think this the right verb), a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here." — Tom Storm

I have been thinking about starting a discussion on how, sometimes, it makes more sense to pay attention to the questions people ask than to the answers they give. That's you're most likely to find where bias, prejudice, and goofy thinking are hiding. So far, I haven't been able to get an intellectual handle on how to think about it.

space lasers — Xtrix

You forgot - that's Jewish space lasers.

A good well-thought out response.

I would contend that at birth there are no moral inclinations. What ever our moral values become are a result of environment and personal development- of which a newborn has little. — Proximate1

That may be so. However, it doesn't mean that "at birth there are no moral inclinations". A new-born lion cub may look cute and cuddly and inclined to do only good, but deep inside it may already dream of the day it is big and strong enough to have you for breakfast. The inclinations may be already present at birth in latent form. — Apollodorus

There are studies that show that human children start making what we would call "moral" distinctions at a very early age - two or three months. Here's a link to an episode of 60 Minutes. It's about 13 minutes long with 2 minutes of ads. I've never seen a psychological study that impresses me or has influenced my views of human nature more. I always think of this when someone disparages psychology as a science. What could be more important than this?

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/msGw1iFHLOXlVdeZtfO9KBW9Kffq3VUl/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/

Well, by all means, get back to me when you think of something to say. — synthesis

I feel bad about being so harsh in my response. That's why I decided to stop.

You don't believe there is self-censorship going-on now? Or that it was the worst part of The Cultural Revolution (being a precursor to what would follow)? — synthesis

You and I are not going to agree on this. I can't think of any more responses beyond what I've already written.

What does that mean? — synthesis

It's a strongly-worded statement of disagreement.

Again -- when it comes to science, and I'm neither an expert nor have time to reach an even intermediate level of knowledge, I go with the consensus view. — Xtrix

I agree with you that consensus is what's important. I sometimes say that truth is what you can convince people of. That's not quite right. It's more that truth is useless unless you can convince the people who are making real-life decisions. In situations like that, the scientific consensus reinforced by an understanding of uncertainty and the consequences of failure is the best we can do.

It is in the most important way...self-censorship. — synthesis

I would accuse you of a lack of perspective, but that does not seem nearly strong enough a statement. You've moved beyond that and are crossing the border into obscenity.

From what I've seen of your own discussions and you participation in other people's, you and I share an interest in some of the same kinds of issues, although you have a very different perspective and focus than I do. I wanted you to know that I really enjoy your ideas, even though I often don't have much to offer in response, given our differences. It's fun to watch you searching and digging for what you want to understand. Maybe that's the biggest thing you and I have in common.

So, why is it that people multiple entities beyond their necessity and say that all actions need to be related to some desire or disposition for us to be able to act? Such a statement cannot be established as a relation of ideas, nor a matter of fact. — Marty

The science is pretty strong on this issue. Here is a link to an article about decision making in people with a certain kind of brain damage.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15134841/

The studies of decision-making in neurological patients who can no longer process emotional information normally suggest that people make judgments not only by evaluating the consequences and their probability of occurring, but also and even sometimes primarily at a gut or emotional level. Lesions of the ventromedial (which includes the orbitofrontal) sector of the prefrontal cortex interfere with the normal processing of "somatic" or emotional signals, while sparing most basic cognitive functions. Such damage leads to impairments in the decision-making process, which seriously compromise the quality of decisions in daily life.

Beyond that, I can speak from personal experience. I try to be self-aware of my mental processes relating to motivation and decision making. For me, the process is not rational at all, at least not at the basic level. For me, motivation arises from within. I picture it as a spring bubbling up from underground. As I said, it's not rational, but it's not irrational either. It's non-rational. Rationality comes in later and acts more as a brake than a driver. It may stop an action or at least mold it to the requirements of responsible behavior. Then again, it may not. Later I might wish that it had.

I recognize that different people experience this differently.

No you won't! — James Riley

I agree.

I'm interested in this discussion, but I'm feeling guilty. We're way off subject. Start a thread and I'll participate. You've obviously thought about this more than I have.

To clarify, I mean that the term is snidely thrown around by right-wingers, moderates, etc. to refer to anything left-of-center that requires thought terminating dismissal (i.e. "whatever vague leftist meaning is needed) detached from the original usage by Black Americans. — Maw

I misunderstood, but then again, I'll argue with anyone, even people I agree with.

Same narrator! — Wayfarer

I'd forgotten the book and Baggett. What can I say. I was much younger then.

And there can't be an empirical method to decide on the differing interpretations - because they're interpretations! — Wayfarer

As I noted, there are physicists who believe there may be testable differences. We'll see.

I don't see it like that. The cosmos is the stage on which physics plays out - provided you confine physics to the observable, which I think is proper. Metaphysics considers the implications of physics in terms of what must be the case in light of certain observations.

I think the question of the nature of the wave-function is a metaphysical question, or even THE metaphysical question implied by modern physics. A lot of the controversies revolve around that point. — Wayfarer

Disagree, but that's a different discussion.

I'm glad you asked me to respond. I enjoyed putting what I think about this issue in writing.

I love the discourse around "Woke". Clown's performing semantic juggling so that the term can acquire whatever vague leftist meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means equality of outcome (an abstraction rejected by Marx and Engels). — Maw

In my experience "woke" is primarily a disparaging term used by conservatives which acquires whatever vague right-wing meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means everything is fine the way it is.

not trying to burden you with work. :yikes: Besides, it’s bookmarked to the specific topic I’m referring to and that section about <10 minutes. — Wayfarer

I started out watching the first five minutes. Then, at your suggestion, I forwarded to the section on Bell's inequality and watched through the end. Let me say first off that the part that always amazes me the most is the technology that allows these types of experiments to be performed. For example, in this video, a light source that allows you to shoot out one photon at a time, the camera that allows you to record one photon at a time, or, most of all, the clocks that allow you to measure the incredibly short periods of time. Another example is the gravity wave detection in the LIGO experiments. The detectors allow measurement of distortions of space by gravity waves much less than the diameter of a proton. How is that possible?

Back to the question at hand. I've read about Bell's equality and entanglement before. I have a real hard time understanding the geometry and statistics of the experiments. Sometimes I can grasp them for a second, but when I stop concentrating, I lose it. Upshot - I trust what the physicists say and leave it at that. I joke and say "I understand quantum mechanics completely - it's just the way things are."

Actually, I don't think that's really a joke. I think that's what they mean when they describe the Copenhagen Interpretation. Don't ask why or what it means, just ask how the world behaves. Shut up and calculate. The narrator calls that the anti-realist position, but I don't see it that way. I think, at bottom, none of our science tells us why. It just tells us how.

Which brings us to what he calls the realist interpretations. For me, the big question, the only question, is whether or not there is an empirical method to determine which is correct even in theory. I believe that is a pretty controversial subject now. It is my understanding that no method for testing the interpretations have been developed. My intuition is that no testing is possible, although I can't justify that scientifically.

That means that there is no difference between the interpretations. That pleases me. I find the Copenhagen Interpretation very satisfying. As I said, it's consistent with how I see science in general. What we call reality is a story we tell ourselves. I think interpretations that can't be told apart even in theory are, I was going to say equivalent but that's not right. They are meaningless. Which is consistent with my preference for the Copenhagen Interpretation. It was always meaningless.

The narrator calls the differences between the interpretations "metaphysics," but I don't see it that way. For me, metaphysics is the stage we build on which physics plays out, the conventions we have established to allow us to talk about reality. I've written many lectures about that, so I won't go into that again.

One more problem, in the first five minutes, one of his basic graphics is wrong - the illustration of the two slit experiment at 3:40. There were others I thought might be wrong, but I was confused about what he was trying to show, so I'm not sure. Sloppy errors like hat undermine my confidence in the narrator.

I don't suppose you have any reflections on the actual topic in the video? — Wayfarer

Geez, now you're asking us to respond to the actual subject of the thread. That's pretty unreasonable.

I just looked at the video and I see it's an hour long. I will watch it, but it might be a bit before I respond. I'll try to do it tomorrow.