Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
jmccr8

What religion does to your brain

227 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw
Just now, jmccr8 said:

Hi Hammer

If beer, bud and booty are okay I'm in.:lol:

jmccr8

Zensunni wanderers only drink Fosters.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Zensunni wanderers only drink Fosters.

I can live with that.:lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, jmccr8 said:

I can live with that.:lol:

A friend of mine in Brisbane ships me a case or two of the real stuff on the sly up to Guam, in a leaky DC3. Then they transit Stateside on a tramp steamer under Liberian registry to San Diego and UPS does the rest.B)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Desetrrat

Yes we will ignore and I will tell them to go to the right thread the idea is not to engage them I don't know but for some reason some people only want to engage if they see an opportunity to fight and what I would like to see is just what the groups are able to do independently. I think that looking at was to resolve issues within groups will demonstrate their ability to have a productive discussion. Not all members of either group share all the same views so there is still divisions that can be explored within each group If participants read both threads and use the other threads points for discussion without discussing the posters then maybe we will see how each group problems solves issues discussed and with each other in their groups.It doesn't have to be personal

jmccr8

Indeed, it is worth a try. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

As an aside, have you seen the state of the other forum recently? It is essentially a place that the more insecure sceptics go to play whack-a-mole with the believers in their alleged "safe space".

Quite sad.

Reading the description for the "Versus" forum you're not really meant to play whack-a-mole here either.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

I can live with that.:lol:

Urgggh... nobody can live with Fosters

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
22 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Urgggh... nobody can live with Fosters

Hi Golden Duck

Who said I was alive?:lol:

Lol, years ago I went to an Irish pub back home and they had and extensive selection of foreign beer, the bartender ask what I wanted so I told him which ones I had tried before so just start from the top of the list and work our way through until I am too drunk or out of money and I got lots of money.:lol:

Funny thing though is after a few they all taste the same so really couldn't give an objective opinion on which beer was best the hangover was a beast though.:lol:

jmccr8

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
23 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Golden Duck

Who said I was alive?:lol:

Lol, years ago I went to an Irish pub back home and they had and extensive selection of foreign beer, the bartender ask what I wanted so I told him which ones I had tried before so just start from the top of the list and work our way through until I am too drunk or out of money and I got lots of money.:lol:

Funny thing though is after a few they all taste the same so really couldn't give an objective opinion on which beer was best the hangover was a beast though.:lol:

jmccr8

I'm sure if if you start on Fosters, or Crown, you'll notice the offensive after taste about halfway through the first bottle or equivalent.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

I'm sure if if you start on Fosters, or Crown, you'll notice the offensive after taste about halfway through the first bottle or equivalent.

I can't remember if the menu was alphabetical or by quality at top and descending into the too drunk to care part :huh::lol:

jmccr8

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 1/30/2021 at 1:45 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

No it doesn't. 

I am assuming this was a humorous,  wry, comment.

Am I wrong ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

I am assuming this was a humorous,  wry, comment.

Am I wrong ?  

Yes.  We don't always have the exact same discussion here with the exact same result.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 1/30/2021 at 1:51 AM, XenoFish said:

From the looks of it, it does. So tell me. How many of these threads end up being Walker's?

If you removed all the thread titles in this section you basically have one mega thread about the same thing.

Sure they start off with there own premise, but devolve into " I'm right, you're wrong" with the same people.

If you removed Walker, Will, and Hab, what would be left? 

Well Hab removed himself for a while.  i didn't see any difference 

People have different experiences and thus different beliefs ,values, ethics and moralities. 

Most are in the middle of a spectrum.

Some are on the extremes.

Take two extremes and you often have positions which are actually quite similar 

Put it another way.

If only Hab myself and Will were here it would be a much less interesting place, and i would soon leave :) 

It is important, even essential tha t people present their own ideas, beliefs, values etc., and argue why they believe they are right (most constructive) But its equally essential tha t others present alternative/different views etc.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yes.  We don't always have the exact same discussion here with the exact same result.

ah Ok  I agree that the discussions vary and sometimes the same  people have different views on different questions However, basically argument doesn't change minds although new facts might do so. 

Most people have a world view,  and personal identity,  which they have constructed and invested heavily in.

It requires a strong force, or long lever, to have them change things which form a part of the identity they have constructed, and feel safe within

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
On 1/24/2021 at 4:03 PM, jmccr8 said:

So I came across this and thought I would put it up for discussion, personally I came away with the feeling that it is a process of focus not dependent on there actually being a god.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539#_noHeaderPrefixedContent

Whether or not a divine power truly does exist might be a matter of opinion, but the neurophysiological effects of religious belief are scientific facts that can be accurately measured. Here, we take a look at some of these effects, as shown by the latest research.

 

It’s kind of interesting. I have always wondered why people would think it wouldn’t have effects on the brain. Eating a cookie has an effect on the Brian. Kissing somone has an effect in the brain, petting a dog has an effect in th brian. Getting a like or a heart on social media platform has an effect on the brain. Why is the effects on the brain something novel when it comes to going to church, prayer, or haveing an extatic experience? 
 

The interesting thing is that those other things have effects on the brain because the response evolved in human beings because it gave them a survival advantage.  Not that the OP has done this, but the argument that religious activities or spiritual experiences affecting the brain somehow invalidate the reality of the stimulus seems preposterous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

It’s kind of interesting. I have always wondered why people would think it wouldn’t have effects on the brain. Eating a cookie has an effect on the Brian. Kissing somone has an effect in the brain, petting a dog has an effect in th brian. Getting a like or a heart on social media platform has an effect on the brain. Why is the effects on the brain something novel when it comes to going to church, prayer, or haveing an extatic experience? 
 

The interesting thing is that those other things have effects on the brain because the response evolved in human beings because it gave them a survival advantage.  Not that the OP has done this, but the argument that religious activities or spiritual experiences affecting the brain somehow invalidate the reality of the stimulus seems preposterous. 

Hi White Crane

I am of the mind that there are several activities that humans practice has the same result and is just a tool for focus in the process for others it could be money, muscle, women, boats cars what ever. I knew a fellow from Australia that was a district manager for the insurance company I worked for. He have a love for a rolls royce silver cloud and had pics of it everywhere inside the glovebox, taped to the horn on the steering wheel, both side of the visor, inside his client book it consumed him. He did buy it though because he was focused on his desire and when the dealership refused his cheque he went to the bank and took cash as threw  it all over their showroom, they never denied his cheque again.

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
A hopeless endeavor to correct at least one defect
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
32 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi White Crane

I am of the mind that thee are several activities that humans practice has the same result and is just a tool for focus in the process for others it could be money, muscle, women, boats cars what ever. I knew a fellow from Australia that was a district manager for the insurance company I worked for. He have a love for a rolls royces silver cloud and had pics of it everywhere inside the glovebox, taped to the horn on the steering wheel, both side of the visor, inside his client book it consumed him. He did buy it though because he was focused on his desire and when the dealership refused his cheque he went to the bank and took cash as threw  it all over their showroom, they never denied his cheque again.

jmccr8

That’s my point though. His desire for those things is an evolved trait based on his serotonin/dopamine ( and whatever else) responses to something that thousands of years ago should have given him status which means access to mates more protection from his peers even status for his children, and thus their access to mates and continuity of his genetic line. Let’s face it. Ghengis Kahn’s addiction to world domination and rape, then handing it to his children, made his genetic line very successful.  

His addicting has a basis in reality.

Some of the same things can be said about church and religions. Group cohesion is probably the primary evolved survival trate responsible for Religions, but we start to divulge form clearly identifiable survival benefits when we start to encounter spiritual beliefs based on things like extatic experience, NDEs, and a couple of other human experiences. The potential for beneficial survival traits must be built into the stimulus otherwise there simply isn’t any reason to be there, and the ancident hypothesi simply is a very far stretch. 

Something similar happens with sleep. Sleep is a very unlikely evolutionary trait. In fact it’s about the worst kind of evolutionary trait to be completely helpless for 1/3 of a life. When you look a lot closer, it starts to become more logical that sleep wasn’t what evlolved. Logically it’s probably our natural state and it was an awake state that evolved to protect us and aquire resources so we can go back to sleeping. Evolution is a funny thing, and I don’t mean to go all Jurassic Park but “nature will find a way.” 

The reason i say this is because the idea that because nural chemistry in the brain and how it relates to spirituality somehow negates the potential reality of that spiritually is not a strong argument at all. It’s quite the opposite. Every evolved trait has some sort of stimulus. If there were a “spiritual” reality or at least different levels or parts of this one that would be identicle, it’s pretty likely that nature would find that if it were useful to an organizm. Anyway...I’m half asleep so I think I have rambled enough. 


 

 

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
21 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

That’s my point though. His desire for those things is an evolved trait based on his serotonin/dopamine ( and whatever else) responses to something that thousands of years ago should have given him status which means access to mates more protection from his peers even status for his children, and thus their access to mates and continuity of his genetic line. Let’s face it. Ghengis Kahn’s addiction to world domination and rape, then handing it to his children, made his genetic line very successful.  

His addicting has a basis in reality.

Some of the same things can be said about church and religions. Group cohesion is probably the primary evolved survival trate responsible for Religions, but we start to divulge form clearly identifiable survival benefits when we start to encounter spiritual beliefs based on things like extatic experience, NDEs, and a couple of other human experiences. The potential for beneficial survival traits must be built into the stimulus otherwise there simply isn’t any reason to be there, and the ancident hypothesi simply is a very far stretch. 

Something similar happens with sleep. Sleep is a very unlikely evolutionary trait. In fact it’s about the worst kind of evolutionary trait to be completely helpless for 1/3 of a life. When you look a lot closer, it starts to become more logical that sleep wasn’t what evlolved. Logically it’s probably our natural state and it was cocioisness that evolved to protect us and aquire resources so we can go back to sleeping. Evolution is a funny thing, and I don’t mean to go all Jurassic Park but “nature will find a way.” 

The reason i say day this is because the idea that because nural chemistry in the brain and how it relates to spirituality somehow negates the potential reality of that spiritually is not a strong argument at all. It’s quite the opposite. Every evolved trait has some sort of stimulus. If there were a “spiritual” reality or at least different levels or parts of this one that would be identicle, it’s pretty likely that nature would find that if it were useful to and organizm. Anyway...I’m half asleep so I think I have rambled enough. 


 

 

Hi White Crane

Yes exactly and the people that wrote the article were trying to direct a point of focus or using it to promote their perspective. We all do it subconsciously, there are times I started thinking about something then all these unrelated things appeared and I thought that they were irrelevant to what I was looking for but at one point had an epiphany and saw that they were related not only as one point to consider but several aspects of many interacting points that influence perspectives of an issue.

You are welcome to be a part of this discussion but ask that you do not engage discussions from a believers position if it is not clear to you personally.:tu:

Edit to add the last part of this post is for the other thread that are talkin in

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
added context
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
20 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Sleep is a very unlikely evolutionary trait.

Not when you consider the fact that planet Earth has night and day.

Almost every living thing gets it's energy from the sun directly or indirectly.

So over billions of years of evolution, sleep is due to preservation of energy.

Not vestigial or unnecessary, it's a remnant/inheritance of our very distant ancestors that has been passed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
13 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Not when you consider the fact that planet Earth has night and day.

Almost every living thing gets it's energy from the sun directly or indirectly.

So over billions of years of evolution, sleep is due to preservation of energy.

Not vestigial or unnecessary, it's a remnant/inheritance of our very distant ancestors that has been passed down.

Thats not the point. Sleep is a very dangerous thing to be doing. It should have been selected against, and there simply isn’t any chemical need for it. Cells can still oxidize suger, and life can still go on. Things that don’t sleep should have out competed things that do a very long time ago. The theory now is that sleep didn’t evolve. Infact consciousnesses did. Sleep would have been the natural state to conserve energy, but being awake and mobile gives tremendous advantages. This is from current theories on the evolution of consciousness. If you think about it, are not most plants always asleep. What about fungus? Things weren’t just running around all the time first. They we’re imobile and conserving, but they evolved awake traits because things that didn’t respond ever  had less of a chance of making it. 

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
16 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

It should have been selected against

Says who?

Your incredulity?

17 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Things that don’t sleep should have out competed things that do a very long time ago.

Says who? Again, due to what? Your incredulity?

Sleep is very important to the overall health of an individual.

https://www.healthline.com/health/why-do-we-sleep#energy-conservation

18 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

The theory now is that sleep didn’t evolve. Infact consciousnesses did.

That is a non sequitur.

Both things obviously evolved and have positive reasons and advantages for existing.

That doesn't mean every organism should have gone extinct if they didn't have those traits.

20 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Sleep would have been the natural state to conserve energy, but being awake and mobile gives tremendous advantages.

Do single celled organisms sleep? Bacteria? Viruses? Fungi? Plants?

Take plants for example.

Getting energy from the sun is pretty difficult at night. So they go into a more dormant state. Then "wake up" when the sun comes back out.

The whole cycle of an acorn growing into a giant Oak tree is completely dependent on the sun. If it never got any sun it wouldn't grow.

All living things need energy to survive.

Some things are more efficient at storing energy. Animals are much better than plants.

29 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

If you think about it, are not most plants always asleep.

Not at all. I don't think that's accurate at all. When the sun is out they are gathering it to perform photosynthesis. Collecting energy and using it.

It's hard to compare the complexity of an animal to a plant in regards to what it means to be awake and asleep.

Sorry for the off topicness. It's late. I was bored and your statement irked me a bit.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
27 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Says who?

Your incredulity?

Says who? Again, due to what? Your incredulity?

Sleep is very important to the overall health of an individual.

https://www.healthline.com/health/why-do-we-sleep#energy-conservation

That is a non sequitur.

Both things obviously evolved and have positive reasons and advantages for existing.

That doesn't mean every organism should have gone extinct if they didn't have those traits.

Do single celled organisms sleep? Bacteria? Viruses? Fungi? Plants?

Take plants for example.

Getting energy from the sun is pretty difficult at night. So they go into a more dormant state. Then "wake up" when the sun comes back out.

The whole cycle of an acorn growing into a giant Oak tree is completely dependent on the sun. If it never got any sun it wouldn't grow.

All living things need energy to survive.

Some things are more efficient at storing energy. Animals are much better than plants.

Not at all. I don't think that's accurate at all. When the sun is out they are gathering it to perform photosynthesis. Collecting energy and using it.

It's hard to compare the complexity of an animal to a plant in regards to what it means to be awake and asleep.

Sorry for the off topicness. It's late. I was bored and your statement irked me a bit.

My “incredulity” haha man that was quick. No it was a lengthy article I once read about the evolution of sleep. It was in Mind magazine I believe. Why did it Irk you so much? Unfortuntly these deep evolutionary realities are something that cant be tested only discerned through logical sequence. It’s like in geology. If there is an inclusion of some sort into a type of rock, then we can logically discern that the type of rock was there earlier and the inclusion came latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
9 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

No it was a lengthy article I once read about the evolution of sleep. It was in Mind magazine I believe. 

I do find that claim to be questionable. I tried searching on Google for the article in question from Mind magazine and nothing turned up.

Unsurprisingly, though, many of the articles that were returned from the query appeared to support sleep as an evolutionary trait.

Here's one interesting article:

Quote

 

https://jeb.biologists.org/content/221/11/jeb159533

Abstract: Sleep is nearly ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom, yet little is known about how ecological factors or perturbations to the environment shape the duration and timing of sleep. In diverse animal taxa, poor sleep negatively impacts development, cognitive abilities and longevity. In addition to mammals, sleep has been characterized in genetic model organisms, ranging from the nematode worm to zebrafish, and, more recently, in emergent models with simplified nervous systems such as Aplysiaand jellyfish. In addition, evolutionary models ranging from fruit flies to cavefish have leveraged natural genetic variation to investigate the relationship between ecology and sleep. (cont'd in the link)

 

 

Quote

Unfortuntly these deep evolutionary realities are something that cant be tested only discerned through logical sequence.

What are you referring to specifically here?

Quote

It’s like in geology.

I disagree. Geology and evolution are incomparable. False equivalence.

Quote

If there is an inclusion of some sort into a type of rock, then we can logically discern that the type of rock was there earlier and the inclusion came latter. 

What do you mean by "inclusion"?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

Why did it Irk you so much?

Because the original statement I quoted you on is completely nonsensical. And it's not really "so much" as enough to get me to respond. 

My fault for even stirring the pot on a completely off topic and tangential nitpick.

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

No it was a lengthy article I once read about the evolution of sleep.

 

3 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

The theory now is that sleep didn’t evolve.

So which is it? Is sleep an evolved trait or no? That's really the heart of my issue here. You seem to think it's an "unlikely evolved" trait. I think it's a totally likely trait due, in large part, to night and day and the conservation of energy.

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

It’s like in geology. If there is an inclusion of some sort into a type of rock, then we can logically discern that the type of rock was there earlier and the inclusion came latter. 

I don't see the point you are trying to make with this analogy.

You're comparing two completely different things.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

It’s not nonsensical at all, and I’m sorry it makes you so emotional nor was any “incredulity” ever involved. It’s just a discussion. Evolutionary psychology, and yes that includes things like where sleep came from (or didn’t come from) is a pretty interesting field. Do to some abnormalities in my own life, I have spent a lot of time trying to understand sleep and the subconscious mechenations during sleep. I’m sorry if you think it’s nonsensical :) , but I’m not an evolutionary psycokogist, I’m merely regurgitating  things I have read about.  
 

The point was that evolved human responses to stimuli usually dont just spear on accident. Sleep wasn’t an analogy, it’s a trait in human and other animals and it’s evolution may not be what it seems. Then you got all irked and psychic about what I was feeling. :shrug. It’s probably useless to continue our dialogue if you insist on making this about me. Good day.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
7 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

It’s not nonsensical at all, and I’m sorry it makes you so emotional

What's with that BS? I'm not emotional at all about it. That's a pretty petty thing to write.

So no need to be sorry.

9 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

nor was any “incredulity” ever involved.

It sure seemed like that :

7 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

Things that don’t sleep should have out competed things that do a very long time ago.

 

7 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

It should have been selected against, and there simply isn’t any chemical need for it.

That's your incredulity on display.

Obviously things that don't sleep haven't out competed things that do.

Sleep is integral to most, if not, all animals. It's obviously important for myriad reasons.

17 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Do to some abnormalities in my own life, I have spent a lot of time trying to understand sleep and the subconscious mechenations during sleep. I’m sorry if you think it’s nonsensical

That has nothing to do with my objection to your statement I originally quoted.

Again. No need to be sorry.

22 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

but I’m not an evolutionary psycogist, I’m merely regurgitating  things I have read about.

Neither am I. 

I wouldn't recommend just "regurgitating" things you've read.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

"Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations."

I feel that sleep definitely falls under that parameter.

27 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Good day.

You as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.