jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #126 Share Posted March 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Mr Walker said: Magical thinking is the actual name used by psychologists and others to describe and explain the way infant, and indeed all human brains, process their environment and make sense of it WHEN they lack sufficient data, knowledge or experience, to be able to construct an accurate factual understanding of what is happening Thus early humans thought tha t the sun was alive and that thunder and lightning were caused by gods. The reality is that there is no evidence that tells us what any archaic people thought, there are burials that show that there as respect paid or indications that the may of held a position of some import, other than that to superimpose a religious meaning of the sun, sky, wind whatever element is pointless because you can't show context. jmccr8 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 1, 2017 #127 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, jmccr8 said: The reality is that there is no evidence that tells us what any archaic people thought, there are burials that show that there as respect paid or indications that the may of held a position of some import, other than that to superimpose a religious meaning of the sun, sky, wind whatever element is pointless because you can't show context. jmccr8 We know how archaic people thought from three things. First the artefacts left behind which indicate purpose and thus intent and belief. Second the recorded writings of Sumerian /Babylonians etc., but most significantly from what we know about the current human mind and cognition. Our mind and cognition is no different in operation/process to a person's from 50000 years ago The evidence for this is the number of archaic peole still available for study who have lived contemporaneously with modern society . Basically a child born today is no different to a child born 50000 years ago. There is no difference in intelligence potential or innate abilty Only in the knowledge base which can be made available to that child as it grows and learns. We KNOW that the mongols worshipped the sky, and many still do. We have studied aboriginal peole from many countries including austrlia and new guinea and KNOW what the y worship and why if you read the writings of the Sumerians and Babylonians oyu can read how the y saw life/spirit in every thing around them but especially worshipped the sun and moon gods Even in European history the records exist of paganism and shamanism. Then there are the Scandinavian, greek, and roman recorded beliefs. Take an australian aboriginal child born on a dusty plain with no English language, educate and train it, and there is no reason it cannot become a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist. I'ts brain and mind is just as capable as a person born into a rich white family, yet two generations earlier its family lived in a lifestyle, and with beliefs, identical to those who lived there 50000 years before Edited March 1, 2017 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #128 Share Posted March 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: if you DO NOT speed read, then there is a few hours reading and studying, just in these few articles, even IF you have the professional language necessary to interpret/ make sense of the content. if you don't, then you have to learn every word's meaning and FIT it into a context which makes sense From what I did read I didn't see a problem, and as a side note I have and will continue to see life as a learning experience, if I don't know what word means I know how to look it up. Every trade profession social group has a language that has unique symbolism to describe itself so what's your point if you want to express yourself in those areas then yes you better be speaking their lingo and that can be learned even by an old man like me. jmccr8 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 1, 2017 #129 Share Posted March 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said: From what I did read I didn't see a problem, and as a side note I have and will continue to see life as a learning experience, if I don't know what word means I know how to look it up. Every trade profession social group has a language that has unique symbolism to describe itself so what's your point if you want to express yourself in those areas then yes you better be speaking their lingo and that can be learned even by an old man like me. jmccr8 I am pleased to hear that So in your own words and when you are ready tell me just what that last passage was talking about? No don't bother. It is not worth your time and effort, which was the point i was making and if you do work it out it doesn't mean another person has the same skills perseverance or time to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #130 Share Posted March 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: The evidence for this is the number of archaic peole still available for study who have lived contemporaneously with modern society . I was under the impression that they were archaic because they don't exist, maybe you mean primitive. 12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: We KNOW that the mongols worshipped the sky, and many still do. We have studied aboriginal peole from many countries including austrlia and new guinea and KNOW what the y worship and why if you read the writings of the Sumerians and Babylonians oyu can read how the y saw life/spirit in every thing around them but especially worshipped the sun and moon gods Even in European history the records exist of paganism and shamanism. Then there are the Scandinavian, greek, and roman recorded beliefs. Yes they did but the context has changed over time and distance and to infer that it is known where and when and why and by who did these rituals and myths originate so no contextual significance can assumed or inferred. For all we know is that most of it wasn't a story calendar for hunting and gathering and later exploited and added to. The fact that religions adapted with the expansion and refinement of human dispersal is easily understood and changes nothing in other than the more developed a society becomes the more it becomes dependent on some form of organized religion that has myths of men who became/became as gods. I don't see how using (perceived by some) historically documented religious faiths and be unable to show scientific evidence of any of the aspects of their faith as a guide to how I would interpret a few grave goods and worshiping anything/one based on the scientific evidence that does exist. jmccr8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #131 Share Posted March 1, 2017 39 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: I am pleased to hear that So in your own words and when you are ready tell me just what that last passage was talking about? No don't bother. It is not worth your time and effort, which was the point i was making and if you do work it out it doesn't mean another person has the same skills perseverance or time to do so. Because you had said that they might be difficult to read,I looked over the first 6 pages of What Cognitive linguistics and the first 6 pgs of Lupyan_Bergen_topics. I did not read them I scanned them for language beyond my depth and saw nothing that I would consider difficult to read. I will read them later and give a response. For some reason you seem to think that I care, I don't I didn't make a claim, I gave an opinion based on personal experience and pretty much everyone understands that. jmccr8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted March 1, 2017 #132 Share Posted March 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Mr Walker said: To me she is re teaching her self. It is a conscious process with her mind in control She has to train parts of her body to respond to mental commands, whereas once they did this semi autonomously, having learned it in infancy. So her body is relearning, but her mind is re teaching. her mind and speech was unaffected by the stroke LO L dependent My wife's first rule is that i must not help or offer to help her with anything, UNTIL she has tried and failed several times to do it for herself, and then asks me to help. i sincerely appreciate your advice Having cared for her parents for 6 years with alzheimers, to the point of total dependence, i recognise the truth in your words. Because we live in australia, not only are many aides available free or very cheaply, but for 60 dollars a week we get, not only 3 professional visits from OTs and physios but several hours of home care with cleaning etc. I've also ordered meals on wheels a couple of days a week and our first meal was crumbed grilled fish and chips, fresh salad, a cup of soup and a pineapple crumble. Again at a very reasonable price. She had 4 weeks in hospital, two air ambulance transfers, and 3 weeks of intense rehab, all a t no cost to us. Over 50 people from specialists and doctors, through health professionals, to cooks and cleaners contributed to her care, and everyone of them was professionally competent and personally compassionate. Thank god, I am pleased to hear you have so much help. It sounds as if you have good palliative care in your area. Lol, yes, I have always gotten the impression MIsses W is a strong lady. please take care of yourself, caregiver is a tough position dont forget you are only human and need time too, She could be reteaching; I think their are those that do reteach themselves. Meals on wheels is fantastic my ladies have it. All the best to you MW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 1, 2017 #133 Share Posted March 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said: And as a rebuttal to this, see almost everything you've ever written here.... That is why i hated to say it. Because of course a number of posters say the same thing about my narratives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 1, 2017 #134 Share Posted March 1, 2017 33 minutes ago, jmccr8 said: Because you had said that they might be difficult to read,I looked over the first 6 pages of What Cognitive linguistics and the first 6 pgs of Lupyan_Bergen_topics. I did not read them I scanned them for language beyond my depth and saw nothing that I would consider difficult to read. I will read them later and give a response. For some reason you seem to think that I care, I don't I didn't make a claim, I gave an opinion based on personal experience and pretty much everyone understands that. jmccr8 To be honest what is the difference between " a claim," and "an opinion based on personal opinion"? As i said i dont outright reject your memories of your early life But if we apply the standards used to judge my experiences here, by others, then they are highly unlikely to be genuine memories from before the age of 2 because we know they just dont fit all tha t we know about ealry child hood memories. Like me, tha t puts you outside what is accepted scientifically Doesnt mean you are wrong or mistaken about your memories. it is just that, according to the experts, it is impossible or unknown for humans to retain memories from before the age of 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #135 Share Posted March 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Mr Walker said: To be honest what is the difference between " a claim," and "an opinion based on personal opinion"? A claim is more like a theory or hypothesis and requires documentation or physical evidences to be presented in support of the claim for examination. This has been brought to your attention many times you use your life as evidence of your claim and was subjected to review. An opinion on the other hand does not fall into the same criteria of proof because it is based on personal experience which I know and support it's exclusion as evidence which is why I didn't publish a biography here. jmccr8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 1, 2017 #136 Share Posted March 1, 2017 1 hour ago, jmccr8 said: I was under the impression that they were archaic because they don't exist, maybe you mean primitive. Yes they did but the context has changed over time and distance and to infer that it is known where and when and why and by who did these rituals and myths originate so no contextual significance can assumed or inferred. For all we know is that most of it wasn't a story calendar for hunting and gathering and later exploited and added to. The fact that religions adapted with the expansion and refinement of human dispersal is easily understood and changes nothing in other than the more developed a society becomes the more it becomes dependent on some form of organized religion that has myths of men who became/became as gods. I don't see how using (perceived by some) historically documented religious faiths and be unable to show scientific evidence of any of the aspects of their faith as a guide to how I would interpret a few grave goods and worshiping anything/one based on the scientific evidence that does exist. jmccr8 You must be talking about something different from what i was saying We KNOW humans saw the sun and moon as living intelligent creatures or entities We know the processes by which the y came to that conclusion, and we can see the same process operating in humans today when faced by unknown qualities. Because ALL qualities are unknown to children this is how the y first begin to think and make sense of their world. religions evolve to meet changing human needs and to allow for increasing understanding and knowledge about our world As to the rest ask an aboriginal person of today why they traditionally buried a body with ochre and goods and with respect and you will know why they did so 50000 years ago . Archaic just means old fashioned or from an early period. Traditional Aboriginal and other cultures are representative of older or archaic cultures from before agriculture and settlement. You can have modern and archaic forms of culture existing side by side, and we do in the world today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 1, 2017 #137 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Just now, jmccr8 said: A claim is more like a theory or hypothesis and requires documentation or physical evidences to be presented in support of the claim for examination. This has been brought to your attention many times you use your life as evidence of your claim and was subjected to review. An opinion on the other hand does not fall into the same criteria of proof because it is based on personal experience which I know and support it's exclusion as evidence which is why I didn't publish a biography here. jmccr8 Again, especially given your definitions here, what is the difference? A claim is simply an opinion. Eg "god exists in physical form" is BOTH a claim, and an opinion. " I can remember my infancy" is the same. Neither requires evidence or proof, but both can only be validated through evidence and proof, BOTH are subject to, first individual proofs and evidences, and secondly ( and separately) to peer reviewed evidences and proofs. I think you are imputing differences in definition which don't exist because you want t make a claim disguised as an opinion, without having to justify or prove its validity EG to be able to remember your infancy when science says this is not possible. . (and i would have to be the last person to argue with you on this,.but your claim is no different to my own.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #138 Share Posted March 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: As i said i dont outright reject your memories of your early life But if we apply the standards used to judge my experiences here, by others, then they are highly unlikely to be genuine memories from before the age of 2 because we know they just dont fit all tha t we know about ealry child hood memories. Like me, tha t puts you outside what is accepted scientifically Doesnt mean you are wrong or mistaken about your memories. it is just that, according to the experts, it is impossible or unknown for humans to retain memories from before the age of 2. That's interesting that there could be so many experts that don't even know that I exist could have an opinion about me, I guess I'm more generous in that sense. I don't know you personally nor do you me, I am not going to argue a point that has no meaning and has no relevance to anyone other than you. I'm here to learn,so I spend most of my time following the threads and at times post observations or links to material of good standing, or to poke fun at you it makes the day enjoyable. jmccr8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #139 Share Posted March 1, 2017 26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: You must be talking about something different from what i was saying We KNOW humans saw the sun and moon as living intelligent creatures or entities We know the processes by which the y came to that conclusion, and we can see the same process operating in humans today when faced by unknown qualities. Because ALL qualities are unknown to children this is how the y first begin to think and make sense of their world. religions evolve to meet changing human needs and to allow for increasing understanding and knowledge about our world Sure they saw the sun and when it is in that position and the stars are there the deer or goat or what ever herd will be moving for winter/spring grazing. When it's there that is the time to burn areas so tubers will grow. Do you not see how mythical stories can be made as a means of recording events, my point is that you cannot infer an interpretation of the context of what the sun represents to people 1.5 mbp, 50,000 kbp or even 10 kbp . Religion is/was political and was crafted to protect and offer assurances as well as control, now don't take it that I am speaking against religion as I think that the bond individuals make with other individuals speaks for it self in a general sense. I hope it is clear to you that I do not believe in a magical world or that children will learn magical thinking and teach it to their elders because for some reason, they what missed that day so the babies came all loaded up magical thinking until they got old. jmccr8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #140 Share Posted March 1, 2017 48 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: Again, especially given your definitions here, what is the difference? A claim is simply an opinion. We hit gold, here you hold the opinion on it while I go file a claim. jmccr8 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 1, 2017 #141 Share Posted March 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: Archaic just means old fashioned or from an early period. This is what archaic means to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans jmccr8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted March 1, 2017 #142 Share Posted March 1, 2017 7 hours ago, Mr Walker said: That is why i hated to say it. Because of course a number of posters say the same thing about my narratives. Ha, well then you should understand the point they are making since you just tried to use the same argument. You should hate to say it because it demonstrates the double standard you operate under pretty clearly. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted March 1, 2017 #143 Share Posted March 1, 2017 13 hours ago, Mr Walker said: A claim is simply an opinion. A brief moment of self-awareness, this. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted March 2, 2017 #144 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Quote Published in the July issue of Cognitive Science, the article presents findings that seem to show that children’s beliefs in the supernatural are the result of their education. Further, argue the researchers, “exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction.” She also told me her research suggests that Barrett’s Born Believers thesis is wrong — that children don’t possess an “innate bias” toward religious belief. Some critique stating the obvious, regarding religion and early development. Quote “When you’ve been told that a woman was created from a man’s rib, or that a man reawakened three days postmortem little worse for wear, your grasp on reality is bound to take a hit.” https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/are-kids-born-with-an-innate-belief-in-god/ The study for those who would like to speed read it. Be warned, you probably won't understand it, has lots of big words like "immediately". https://www.bu.edu/learninglab/files/2012/05/Corriveau-Chen-Harris-in-press.pdf 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted March 2, 2017 #145 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, jmccr8 said: I didn't make a claim, I gave an opinion based on personal experience and pretty much everyone understands that. jmccr8 Yep, most of us understand that. It's not a claim until you start bringing out the real science, such as the "on the properties of oranges and dogs" theory. Lots of big words in it if you can't speed read though lol. There are some good arguments that humans in general are born with certain predispositions, that could make them prone to supernatural beliefs and explanations. In other words, it could be an emergent property of our cognitive and mental processes (humans aren't generally renowned for being rational or logical). This isn't all there is to it though, obviously, because some don't ever take on such beliefs and early environment obviously plays a part. There doesn't seem the general consensus on how this all works as the nuttier believers would like to proclaim either. They infer very much from very little, and often seem unaware of modern research which demonstrates that from a very early age we can understand far more and are far more sophisticated and advanced than previously thought (including studies using neuroimaging techniques). It seems that many cognitive "scientists" confuse being young, imaginative and credulous, with being a moron (it's really the sole domain of adults anyway lol). According to some cognitive "scientists" (quite often religiously inclined and/or funded) what happens is that you are born believing in the paranormal (see "god"), then if you want to be an atheist, you have to "unlearn" it. lol. Edited March 2, 2017 by Horta 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted March 2, 2017 #146 Share Posted March 2, 2017 19 hours ago, jmccr8 said: Sure they saw the sun and when it is in that position and the stars are there the deer or goat or what ever herd will be moving for winter/spring grazing. When it's there that is the time to burn areas so tubers will grow. Do you not see how mythical stories can be made as a means of recording events, my point is that you cannot infer an interpretation of the context of what the sun represents to people 1.5 mbp, 50,000 kbp or even 10 kbp . Religion is/was political and was crafted to protect and offer assurances as well as control, now don't take it that I am speaking against religion as I think that the bond individuals make with other individuals speaks for it self in a general sense. I hope it is clear to you that I do not believe in a magical world or that children will learn magical thinking and teach it to their elders because for some reason, they what missed that day so the babies came all loaded up magical thinking until they got old. jmccr8 No The people of that time BELIEVED absolutely and totally the reality of what they observed (There was no realistic alternative open to them given the lack of scientific understanding and knowledge of the world aound them) The sun was seen as a living being who took note of human activities and could either harm or help us. it was totally integrated into how they lived We know this again from how primitive peole think and act but also from remnants of behaviours of early European beliefs and from the writings of the first civilised humas who STILL held absolutely to this very real and physical, dual nature of existence, where all living things had a spirit like that of a human being. Early societies did NOT divide the world into material and spiritual things EVERYTHING was composed of both. And every action had to consider how the spirits would react So you propitiated them with prayers ceremonies or sacrifices You would not expect to make a good beer unless oyu invoked and propitiated the spirits of the ingredients and of the process. You could not expect to be able to light a fire, if the spirit of the fire opposed you. because that was how you understood the nature of fire itself. Try to imagine that you know NOTHING about the sun, except that which you can observe, and you have no OTHER knowledge to help you interpret the real nature of the sun. eg the properties of fire or heat etc. WHY does it behave as it does, what purpose does it have ? You actually have the functional purpose and origin of religion wrong. Religion grew spontaneously from the inner beliefs of peole Those beliefs were much more in common tha the beliefs of peole today because again there were no alternatives Everyone saw observed and knew only wha t the y could gather from their own experinces. It probably was manipulated and controlled by ambitious people but ALL of them were true believers it is highly probably that the earliest small cities were only able to develop because the cooperative endavour of their citizens was welded together by a common religious belief and understanding. Religion allowed for things like public buildings irrigation communal agriculture and animal husbandry it provided the legal basis for all ealry societies. It was not imposed from above but generated and supported by the people because it met the needs of those people Thus as the needs of people changed so did he forms of worship used, change. Magical thinking is a scientific reality I am not sure why you don't like the idea It makes simple sense when we understand how humans process knowledge and make sense of a world where they lack knowledge. It explains why over 90 % of modern humans, even the most highly educated and westernised still profess a basic belief in some form of higher power or spiritual identity.while less than 10 % identify as atheists who have no belief in such things. This propensity is an evolved one, programmed into the earliest cognition of human beings and, with the vast majority of humans, maintained into adult hood, even when we have more knowledge and understanding than children or primitive humans. . It is irrelevant whether a magical world exists or not. It is the way humans think about such magic which shapes us. (Also true about the actual insistence of gods etc. Arguably we have never been affected by real gods and yet the entirety of human existence has been shaped and formed not by the reality of our world by our BELIEF in the nature of that world and the existence of gods etc.. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted March 2, 2017 #147 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mr Walker said: No The people of that time BELIEVED absolutely and totally the reality of what they observed (There was no realistic alternative open to them given the lack of scientific understanding and knowledge of the world aound them) The sun was seen as a living being who took note of human activities and could either harm or help us. it was totally integrated into how they lived We know this again from how primitive peole think and act but also from remnants of behaviours of early European beliefs and from the writings of the first civilised humas who STILL held absolutely to this very real and physical, dual nature of existence, where all living things had a spirit like that of a human being. Early societies did NOT divide the world into material and spiritual things EVERYTHING was composed of both. And every action had to consider how the spirits would react So you propitiated them with prayers ceremonies or sacrifices You would not expect to make a good beer unless oyu invoked and propitiated the spirits of the ingredients and of the process. You could not expect to be able to light a fire, if the spirit of the fire opposed you. because that was how you understood the nature of fire itself. Try to imagine that you know NOTHING about the sun, except that which you can observe, and you have no OTHER knowledge to help you interpret the real nature of the sun. eg the properties of fire or heat etc. WHY does it behave as it does, what purpose does it have ? You actually have the functional purpose and origin of religion wrong. Religion grew spontaneously from the inner beliefs of peole Those beliefs were much more in common tha the beliefs of peole today because again there were no alternatives Everyone saw observed and knew only wha t the y could gather from their own experinces. It probably was manipulated and controlled by ambitious people but ALL of them were true believers it is highly probably that the earliest small cities were only able to develop because the cooperative endavour of their citizens was welded together by a common religious belief and understanding. Religion allowed for things like public buildings irrigation communal agriculture and animal husbandry it provided the legal basis for all ealry societies. It was not imposed from above but generated and supported by the people because it met the needs of those people Thus as the needs of people changed so did he forms of worship used, change. Magical thinking is a scientific reality I am not sure why you don't like the idea It makes simple sense when we understand how humans process knowledge and make sense of a world where they lack knowledge. It explains why over 90 % of modern humans, even the most highly educated and westernised still profess a basic belief in some form of higher power or spiritual identity.while less than 10 % identify as atheists who have no belief in such things. This propensity is an evolved one, programmed into the earliest cognition of human beings and, with the vast majority of humans, maintained into adult hood, even when we have more knowledge and understanding than children or primitive humans. . It is irrelevant whether a magical world exists or not. It is the way humans think about such magic which shapes us. (Also true about the actual insistence of gods etc. Arguably we have never been affected by real gods and yet the entirety of human existence has been shaped and formed not by the reality of our world by our BELIEF in the nature of that world and the existence of gods etc.. ) Wow, what an interesting article. Religiosity does not promote altruism and morality as promoted, it seems kids from non religious families demonstrate more selflessness. https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/11/05/religious-upbringing-associated-less-altruism-study-finds Edited March 2, 2017 by Sherapy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted March 2, 2017 #148 Share Posted March 2, 2017 3 hours ago, Mr Walker said: You could not expect to be able to light a fire, if the spirit of the fire opposed you. because that was how you understood the nature of fire itself Well I guess you'd be freezing your azz off on a cold night with no fire. You are talking a lot of fluff here with your interpretations of how archaic humans ( note reference to link in post #141 ) believed or interpreted the world around them. I have a fair sized folder on Neaderthals as well as a couple of other folders on archaic humans of published and peer reviewed articles so your not talking about a subject that I am unfamiliar with. If your are having trouble let me know and I will gladly PM some links to you for clarification. None of the current documentation available avers with certainty what or how these people thought so what you have posted is flawed in that it is your personal position and not in keeping what is scientifically known. jmccr8 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted March 5, 2017 #149 Share Posted March 5, 2017 On 02/03/2017 at 6:26 PM, jmccr8 said: You are talking a lot of fluff here with your interpretations of how archaic humans ( note reference to link in post #141 ) believed or interpreted the world around them. I have a fair sized folder on Neaderthals as well as a couple of other folders on archaic humans of published and peer reviewed articles so your not talking about a subject that I am unfamiliar with. If your are having trouble let me know and I will gladly PM some links to you for clarification. None of the current documentation available avers with certainty what or how these people thought so what you have posted is flawed in that it is your personal position and not in keeping what is scientifically known. jmccr8 There are some other interesting ideas on the evolution of religion (and consciousness in general). For a fringe theory, this one is fascinating. Also helps explain things like schizophrenia and the lite version (schizotypy) that is likely to be prevalent in paranormal and religious delusions. Though it’s likely all people have such symptoms, at least to some level. It makes some good points and is consistent with cultural anthropology in many ways, even if it is unlikely to be the precise explanation. At any rate, we are all born atheists by definition (no belief in gods). It isn't until later, when we have the fairy tales explained to us indoctrinated culturally, that we have opportunity to directly reject it. Sadly this usually happens at a time when we are the most trusting and credulous. As the previously linked studies show, if we aren't swamped in other people delusional nonsense at an early age, we are far less likely to accept such obvious fantasy. It's a huge bow to stretch to say that because we have potential for magical thinking or attributing agency, that we all do this consistently or attribute paranormal agency to things as some sort of default (and thus "god"). As far as magical thinking goes, the assumption that it is not as prevalent, or perhaps more so among adults itself could be way off (eg. the entirety of creation "science"). It seems lost on the nutters that the most their claims could indicate is that a tendency towards irrationality in general would make religious beliefs some sort of odd cognitive epiphenomena of our imagination and mental processes. In this much at least, it sounds about right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horta Posted March 5, 2017 #150 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Sorry, link didn't work in post above. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now