gib65

Ever heard of it? Here's a link to the theory by Stuart Hameroff: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/overview.html I want to understand this better because it seems like a few paradoxes might fall out of this. For example, Hameroff says "As qubits in the brain Penrose suggested superpositions of neurons both firing and not firing." If neurons can be in states of superposition, firing and not firing at the same time, then where does that leave the classical notion of neurons firing in response to stimulation by other neurons? Everything we know about neuroscience would have to be turned on its head! Is anyone an "expert" or QC - or even just know a few things about it?

Wishful thinking, I guess. It's one of those things that seems so close yet so far away. I've always had a dream that over the course of my lifetime, I could find people across the internet who are interested in conjuring up good ideas to solve religious and political problems around the world. We wouldn't have to be powerful or even effective - we would just be interested in sharing ideas. It wouldn't even have to be that intensive - just casual discussions every now and then. Even if only one mediocre idea came out of it, that would be better than nothing. At least it would be there, in the open, and so long as it stays written on the internet, it would have the potential to catch the attention of someone else who has the power and means to implement it. It seems so simple - all you need is the internet, a decent set of skills for meeting people over it, and a desire to see it through. Is this just wishful thinking? Do I dream too big?

Mike, What do you think of the prospect that one day average citizens from various countries, religions, and ethnicities will find a more dignifying identity in the company of each other than in their respective country, religion, or ethnicity? I think the internet is already moving people in that direction. Of course, one needs to be somewhat educated and have access to the internet to make this work, but I think there's enough people around the globe to have representatives from nearly all countries, religions, and ethnicities who can speak on behalf of their communities. I don't think we're going to get far by trying to reason with the fanatics and terrorists, and I don't think the prospect of dealing with politicians is much better. I really think it's going to have to be average citizens reaching out to other average citizens. What do you think?

You're absolutely right. We need to decide on a standard by which we can judge a religion or ideology as "good" or "bad", and we have no other recourse to such a standard than our own cultural views. So if someone wanted to judge Christianity as bad because promoting martyrdom leads to a lot of self-inflicted suffering, a Christian might use that same measure to "prove" how Christianity is good. But what I wanted to get at was to distinguish between the view that religion itself is wrong versus the view that it depends on the ideas inherent in a particular religion that aught to be judged as right or wrong. I'm leaning more towards the latter. But even as I do this, the problem you pose is still there. If I wanted to judge idea X from religion A as wrong or idea Y from religion B as right, I can't escape my own cultural bias in making this judgment. But at least I'm picking apart the ideas one-by-one instead of generalizing to all religions. I think that's a good thing, and I'm asking if others agree or disagree.

I think you may be right when it comes to competing religions. Any one religion that holds X to be true is going to be more warry and sceptical about another religion that hold NOT-X to be true. But the question I posed in my OP is best understood in the context of one religion in isolation (I know... doesn't exist), and I'm asking what internal elements of a religion make it good or bad, safe or dangerous, healthy or unhealthy. For example, imagine a religion which is currently not at war with any other society of a different religion, and moreover only has a vague awareness of other societies and religions in far off places. Suppose this religion promoted the use of drugs for recreational purposes. What kind of effect would this have on the society internally? Would it be a good effect or a bad one? What if the religion promoted eating well and exercising daily? What then?

herme3, Yes, what you say makes sense. But like I said before, I see society moving away from that view and more towards a view that insanity, the kind that warrants conviction to a mental hospital, is marked by harm to others or one's self. But then again, if one's beliefs were radically different, one could still mean no harm to others or themselves but still find living in society to be very difficult given their conflicting practices and all - this might be considered harmful by some.

Well, that's a start. Believe me, the whole world isn't like that. Wait 'til college (are you going to college?). Where do you live by the way - small town or big city?

Hi Herme3, Well, you're right. You shouldn't have to keep quiet while other Christians exercise the freedom to preach their views. But we live in a world where we sometimes have to curtail our desires to do what we "should" feel free to do. I would think of it this way: I don't think your parents are trying to stamp out your right to express your views; it sounds like they're just concerned about their public image. Yes, it's an incredibly petty thing to worry about, but c'est la vie. Also, if they're telling you that it's your decision to choose your own path, that tells me they want to respect your position. Therefore, I think they're open to compromise - I would respect their wishes not to voice your opinions around relatives and other community members. But what you also need is your own community, one with like-minded people in which you can express yourself. That'll allow you to blow off steam and such which is very important psychologically considering the kind of transition you're going through. BTW, I hope you don't mind my asking, but how old are you? Yes, I do (have similar desires, that is). That's why I'm on several forums like SFN (others include mostly philosophy forums). So here's some advice. No one's looking to be a follower. No one says "Geez, I wish someone would come along and preach some doctrine to me so I can hang on their every word and devote my life to following them to the grave." People want to have their own opinions on almost everything, and given the choice between being a leader and a follower, guess what 99% of people are going to choose? For the reason alone, you're going to encounter resistance from anyone who you try to persuade - either they'll already be settled on a belief counter to yours and will defend it regardless of right reason, or they'll already agree with you in which case you won't need to convert them or preach to them. Of course, this doesn't mean you can't be a leader. It just means you'll have find a community or group of people who, after getting to know you well, will decide for themselves that you'd make a great leader. You don't go up to them and tell them you aught to be their leader - you just introduce yourself to them, make friends, find your niche in the community (if they can afford a niche for you), and from there, let things evolve by themselves. If you were really meant to be a leader for these people, it'll happen naturally. Oh, and your crusade has been fought since the Enlightenment. It hasn't extinguished Christianity or other religions, and I don't think it ever will (as a matter of fact, I hope it won't), but at least it's given us the right to choose what we want to believe.

Hi IMM, Both you and Bascule seem to have possessed avatars What happened?!?! herme3, I have no idea what your past is like or what kind of posts you've made in the last 6 months (maybe I'll do a search), so I'm just going to comment on your post as is. You started out sounding like you thought Christians or any religious person aught to be confined to a mental asylum. But then near the end, I got a different impression. It started sounding like you're saying no one should be confined simply for having different beliefs from the mainstream. Two thoughts come to mind: 1) Having beliefs that one cannot prove is not the mark of insanity. More often than not, the most sane person is the one who adapts to his/her own culture's views. So if Christian thought is the mainstream thought of the age, you will find the typical sane person subscribing to Christianity. But when Christianity gives way to a new scientific era, the typical sane person becomes more open to a scientific view. I don't want to say the sane person adopts a scientific view because our culture isn't exactly like that - our culture exercises freedom of belief, which means the sane person, in our culture, recognizes that he/she has the freedom to choose one belief system over another. 2) I think society is moving away from the view of insanity as "someone who believes in 'crazy' ideas without proof". I think we're starting to recognize that what warrants institutionalizing someone for mental illnesses the most is if they are doing harm to others or themselves, or in some way cannot function in society. This actually ties directly into the point I was making in my OP - when is a religion simply different or even "weird" and when is it dangerous?

Slowly but surely. That's honestly the best answer I can give.

Mike, I think you underestimate the problem. I agree that the world is full of fanatics of all stripes, and it matters very little what ideology they are obsessed over. But the real danger is when these individuals find themselves in a society which is all too willing to listen to their views and heed their every word. It may not be a society of fanatics on the whole, but when their sentiments and values are already leaning to one side (the side the fanatic is on), and without social institutions that allow for freedom of expression and the right to challenge authority by non-violent means, then this creates ample opportunities for the fanatics to climb into positions of power. I also wanted to say, to everyone, that I feel bad for starting this thread. I had seen religious debates on SFN before and saw that they were pretty popular, so I thought I'd start my own. I should have taken notice that SFN had gone through some changes and if I looked more carefully, I would have seen that the "philosophy and religion" forum had been archived and closed. Also, I was an absolute bone head for posting this in the "philosophy of science" forum. I don't know why I did that. I think I was too eager to start this thread and I didn't pay attention to what forum I was currently viewing. I'll definitely be paying more attention in the future. So in any case, my apologies to everyone. That being said, I hope this thread can continue. I'll understand if the mods want to shut it down for whatever reason, but it seems to be going along smoothly so far. I think we've seen some good and interesting - and civilized - posts being made, and I think it would be good for it to continue.

Well, if it was taken dogmatically, then yes. But I don't think it is dogmatic, generally. I actually think a dogmatic science is an oxymoron. The scientific method is taught as a rational means for acquiring knowledge about the physical world. It is presented as a sound method because of it makes logical and practical sense and it has a long history of working. But if someone refuses to believe in it or practice it, it doesn't reinforce itself upon that person. It just offers the method for those who choose to use it. We don't have science police breaking into every laboratory to make sure our fellow scientists are applying the method properly. It may not accept alternative methods that conflict with it, but this isn't dogma since it can defend its reasons for not accepting alternative methods with rational argument. Furthermore, dogma is most dangerous when it is used in a political context - that is, when it is used to control the lives and beliefs of the population at large. I mean, you could have some sorry Joe Shmoe who sits in his basement all day dwelling over some belief that he holds dogmatically (i.e. he refuses to listen to reason and constantly insists his beliefs are correct), but usually such a person could be left to wallow in his own issues. If he gets really psycho, he might do some harm to others for not accepting his beliefs, and then I'd say he's dangerous. In short, if the scientific method was followed dogmatically, then it could become dangerous, but since it's not followed dogmatically, it's not dangerous at all - in fact, I think it's the best thing that's happened to humanity since the dawning of philosophy in the ancient greek world.

I think you hit the nail right on the head, Bascule. Focusing your attention on an afterlife takes mental energy away from focusing on this world - the world that needs tending to the most.

Oops. My bad. Sorry.

This is not a religion bashing thread. This is more like a religion reconciling thread. I see a lot of anti-religious sentiments on this forum from time to time. This is expected, of course, being a science forum and all, and its not always unjustified. After all, religions, particularly pre-modern western religions, have a bad track record for making life miserable for people. But what I wonder is what makes a religion "bad"? A lot of people hold the view that religion itself is bad - plain and simple. One must defining "religion" first before making such a bold claim, of course, but I guess what the view boils down to is that any kind of ideology that is meant to be taken dogmatically is a dangerous thing. Fair enough. But is this equivalent to "religion" proper? Can you have a religion that is open to scientific advancement, or the freedom of speech, or the right to question authority? Would this kind of religion be "bad"? I guess my view is that religion, overall, is not inherently bad, but the ideas it espouses may be. For example, a religion that demands blind obedience or that says suffering is good is dangerous. On the other hand, a religion that says one should meditation once a day or that one should help others in need might be good. What do others think?

Time to invest in a new door.

I see. Thanks nettron

Okay, thanks nettron. So then, if we had a neurotransmitter N, could N bind to several different receptor types over a wide sample of synapses? That is, say at synapse S1, N might bind to inhibitory receptors IR and at synapse S2, also releasing N, N might bind to excitatory receptors ER. Or is N always either an inhibitory neurotransmitter or an excitatory one no matter where you find it in the brain?

Hi everyone, I'm looking for a few good books on tribal societies and culture. Specifically, I'm looking for something on African tribes and South American tribes - one book for each would be preferable. I'm looking for something as broad as possible - culture, arts, religions, politics, social dynamics, ecology, etc. Anybody know any good books?

If a synapse is inhibitory or excitatory, does it make sense to call the neurotransmitter at that site inhibitory or excitatory? I mean, for any synapse, there is only one neurotransmitter that it releases, right? What about the receptors on the recipient neuron - will there be only one type of those, either inhibitory or excitatory?

Ah. So in other words, it doesn't matter at what scale you're studying the wavelength at, it will always display "quantum effects" so to speak. That is something to consider, so thanks for that. Do physicists have a clear-cut way of decided what phenomena can be studied more or less ignoring quantum mechanics and what phenomena cannot?

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'll be sure to read those articles.

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the deBroglie wavelength?

I hear you. But this is what I was getting at - at what scale can you just not ignore quantum mechanics. Thanks

At what scale do we start to see quantum phenomena? Is it picometers? Is it a femtometer?