I think it's pretty clear from this thread and others that 3017 has posted to that 3017 simply is not interested in any sort of reasonable exchange. What do you say? — tim wood

I've enjoyed this thread, although it's been a bit frustrating. If you don't like his stuff, why participate?

1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)? — 3017amen

I would say that the curious mind isn't restricted as such to social animals. Many animals, solitary and social exhibit similar behavior. It boils down to, in the simplest of terms, a questioning attitude, something which all prey and predators - hunter & hunted being a universal theme of life - must possess either to capture prey/evade predators.


That said, a social existence, can give a boost to curiosity as a trait for the simple reason that it is, all things considered, an environment unto itself, something solitary animals miss out on. The exact impetus to the evolution of the curious mind as you put seems difficult to pinpoint but if I were to hazard a guess, confining myself to homo sapiens, we have language, we imitate, we reason fairly well and these abilities, if they are abilities, make curiosity communicable and transmissible, also providing it with context. Curiosity would flourish, do very well, in social animals like us who've evolved certain abilities mentioned above that facilitate such.

2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages? — 3017amen

I already answered that question but let's talk about the downsides of curiosity. It's said that curiosity killed the cat and surely such a well-phrased adage cum warning must contain, at best a sound advice, at worst a grain of truth in it.

As I mentioned earlier and it must be getting tedious for you, curiosity is, in a sense, the difference between a full belly and an empty one. However, if an animal acts on its curiosity, attempts to answer the question, say, "can this be eaten?" it must also contend with the converse query, "can this eat me?" Many lives have probably been lost because of the inherent ambiguity (hunter/game) that lies at the heart of curiosity viz. an encounter with the unknown. It's essentially a trade-off between finding lunch and ending up as one and that's why strong social groups - human socities for example - that reduce/minimize the risk of injury/death that comes with the curious mind tend to be more/most curious.

3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? — 3017amen

There seems to be an intriguing paradox lurking beneath the trio of social existence, religion, and science as the poster-child of curiosity. As I said earlier, human social existence is the current-best setting for the curious mind to reach stratospheric heights. Compare that to religion - essentially moral in nature, consolidating the bond between individuals and thus the cohesive force that maintains society's integrity - and how it, in its own way, stifles curiosity. Religion, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, is forced down our throats as some kind of final solution, the answer to answer all questions, it is the ultimate truth. Go down that road and you'll come to a grave, buried in it the curious mind.

The paradox is that though society is the best available soil as it were for the flower of curiosity to grow, one existing force that keeps people together in harmonious union (religion) is dead against curiosity.

To answer your question, religion isn't really a search for truth; au contraire, its a position that truth has not only been found but also that the search for it must be put to an end. It's not a "...pathway..." to some unknown destination, it's a place we're told we've already arrived at. In this, it differs from science which works under the assumption that there are many things we're still clueless about. It appears then that religion and science as a partnership in the search for truth falls at the first hurdle - one believes it knows what reality is, the other insists it doesn't have the faintest idea what reality is.

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

This seems a promising line of inquiry. I second the motion.

The exact impetus to the evolution of the curious mind as you put seems difficult to pinpoint but if I were to hazard a guess, confining myself to homo sapiens, we have language, we imitate, we reason fairly well and these abilities, if they are abilities, make curiosity communicable and transmissible, also providing it with context. — TheMadFool

TMF!

Thank you kindly for your contribution. Indeed, we have learned that some primates seem to exhibit varying degrees of curiosity, or even in a bit more obvious fashion, facial manifestations/expressions which seem to indicate some level of joy or anger. Of course, we assume, as a common theme here, that the primitive limbic system where much of this sentient cognition resides, is alive and well.

And so in keeping with the abstract structure definition of sentient life forms or Being, we are still left with metaphysical features of brain life associated with our ontology. Nonetheless, if one were to proceed to the next level of evolutionary logic, the intellect, which employs both abstract structures of feeling and logic (curiosity, wonderment, etc. etc.) we know that when those same primates gather, they seemingly aren't concerned with wondering about philosophical concepts and the like.

To that end, how do we connect the dots from lower level primate intellect, to higher-level feelings of self awareness and left-right brain features of cognition/consciousness?

As I mentioned earlier and it must be getting tedious for you, curiosity is, in a sense, the difference between a full belly and an empty one. However, if an animal acts on its curiosity, attempts to answer the question, say, "can this be eaten?" — TheMadFool

That would be a function of animal instinct, no? For example, it remains a mystery why sharks mistakenly attack humans for their prey. The common inference is that their sense data is not sophisticated enough to discern the difference between seals and humans. Indeed, in that situation, it would be 'tedious' for sure :joke:

3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? — 3017amen
There seems to be an intriguing paradox lurking beneath the trio of social existence, religion, and science as the poster-child of curiosity. As I said earlier, human social existence is the current-best setting for the curious mind to reach stratospheric heights. Compare that to religion - essentially moral in nature, consolidating the bond between individuals and thus the cohesive force that maintains society's integrity - and how it, in its own way, stifles curiosity. Religion, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, is forced down our throats as some kind of final solution, the answer to answer all questions, it is the ultimate truth. Go down that road and you'll come to a grave, buried in it the curious mind.

The paradox is that though society is the best available soil as it were for the flower of curiosity to grow, one existing force that keeps people together in harmonious union (religion) is dead against curiosity.

To answer your question, religion isn't really a search for truth — TheMadFool

Indeed, I think your foregoing concerns relates to the age old cultural paradigms that in this instance, give the concept of God a bad name, as it were. For example, many times you and I have discussed the dangers of religious dogma relative to fundamentalism and radical extremist type behaviors. So in short, no exceptions taken there.

However, where I thought you might take the discussion-question is more in the way of phenomenology, empirical data and logical inference. What I mean by that is we know in cognitive science that the religious experience exists, by the likes of William James and many other's.

To that end, you said:

. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? — 3017amen
This seems a promising line of inquiry. I second the motion. — TheMadFool

I third the motion!

Thanks TMF, I always enjoy the discussion.