The Power of Prayer.

[Navigator]

The problem is that many skeptics feel that learning more about the brain and how it creates feelings is magical and wonderful for them. In order to preserve your own magical feelings, you're complaining about the way others seek out those feelings for themselves. That's not going to open up lines of communication with such people.

I understand this but have to say that those feelings of awe need to be transferred into actions and in relation to this physical reality, if anyone is looking to argue with those who ‘see things differently’ then the ‘same page’ aspect has to be evident in what can be agreed upon, rather than what is not.

In relation to Carl Sagan and ‘Pale Blue Dot’ it is clear that Carl is saying that the awe needs to be displayed in the action of mutual respect (kindness) and preserving our home planet. That is the priority of Awe.

This is the information...the brain alone cannot achieve this thing.

As awesome as the brain may be....if the ‘awe’ that is found through a number of avenues and aspects of human interest does not itself translate into actions of preserving and mutual respect, kindness, appreciation, cooperation etc, then it is useless no matter what ‘causes’ it.

That is ‘the same page’. That is where ‘the lines of communication open up’.

 

[JaysonR]

I don't know that we can philosophically claim that action is required for awe to be validly recognized as equal in experience for all people, regardless of the experiential cause.

It can be made a claim dogmatically (I mean this term in a secular sense), and probably should for any given assertive or proactive philosophical "intuition pump" (to borrow a phrase from Daniel Dennett), but I don't think it's required in identification categorically when analyzing the systemic function of the human experience physiologically.

What I mean is that when we define the neurological presence of awe, we don't require the abstract concept of "action" to exist; we require the chemical dump to be present which causes the emotional sensation of awe and that's pretty much it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Woo Slingers always love to define "awe" as having to exist within the concept of not fully knowing or understanding. I find this idea incredibly anti-intellectual.

If "removing the mystery" from something and looking at it purely rational terms ruins it for you, it needed to be ruined.

 

[JaysonR]

Woo Slingers always love to define "awe" as having to exist within the concept of not fully knowing or understanding. I find this idea incredibly anti-intellectual.

If "removing the mystery" from something and looking at it purely rational terms ruins it for you, it needed to be ruined.

While I understand where you're coming from; this isn't exactly true.

Case in point, a rather mundane example, while I love watching and reading the 'behind-the-scene' content regarding how movies are made (including the production business end of decisions that resulted in different characters coming and going from movies and television series), my wife really does not appreciate being told any of this information as she feels that it completely ruins the fantasy of the experience for her because it tells how the magic trick was accomplished and renders it into something completely mundane.

The same is true regarding magician's tricks; she would rather not know as it ruins it for her, while for me, I am enriched even more by knowing the "how" of the magic tricks.

Neither of us are religious, but this is a very natural response when someone enjoys a form of some medium of interaction in society that relies on some level of emotional interaction which is mostly a substance of fascination by the lack of mundane knowledge about the interaction itself.

Now; out of the two of us, I am the one more likely to be religious (though neither of us are very likely to ever be religious).

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't inquire into what's going on, and I am right there alongside of Dr. Andrew Newberg in advocating that we absolutely should dig even more into the matter; yet, I do not think this inherently means that every adherent of some belief should be forced to be aware of every physical neurological detail of their behaviors.

In fact, from a neurological standpoint, it would be far more beneficial if they would not learn anything about the neuroscience of their behavior so that their behavior and experiences could be more authentically examined without tampering with the environment of their perceptions.

 

[Navigator]

I don't know that we can philosophically claim that action is required for awe to be validly recognized as equal in experience for all people, regardless of the experiential cause.

It can be made a claim dogmatically (I mean this term in a secular sense), and probably should for any given assertive or proactive philosophical "intuition pump" (to borrow a phrase from Daniel Dennett), but I don't think it's required in identification categorically when analyzing the systemic function of the human experience physiologically.

What I mean is that when we define the neurological presence of awe, we don't require the abstract concept of "action" to exist; we require the chemical dump to be present which causes the emotional sensation of awe and that's pretty much it.

In regard to:​

Those who think it important that Awe is more than just a word to identify an emotion (and in that, whatever sparks the emotion):

Are you saying:​

That they are by some default incorrect to expect awe to exhibit a certain type of behaviour?

If so, are you saying that it can be seen as a legitimate thing to try and tear down/berate etc those who chose to allow awe to inspire changes in behaviour and find ways to be kind to each other and help preserve our home planet by looking for ways in which to ‘get on the same page’ because it is by some default considered incorrect to expect the emotion inspired by awe to grow into something akin to spiritual concern?

 

[Navigator]

Woo Slingers always love to define "awe" as having to exist within the concept of not fully knowing or understanding. I find this idea incredibly anti-intellectual.

If "removing the mystery" from something and looking at it purely rational terms ruins it for you, it needed to be ruined.

Rubbish!

The FACT is, you cannot in all your life expect to fully understand and know everything, so there will always be mystery.

We actually exist within a reality (not merely a concept) which is not fully known or understood, and as you may be aware, this does not inhibit feelings of awe, but it can – it would seem – inhibit potential actions which feelings of awe inspire, if one simply waits around for everything to demystify before committing to such action.

One is more likely to be reduced to habitually attempting to tear down and ruin a power which is not so susceptible to such actions.

(hitting ones head upon a brick wall)

It is easy from certain observable perspectives that there is no mystery in regard to why attempts to ruin that which is regarded by some as ‘needing to be ruined’ doesn't actually ruin anything.

These things which some are attempting to ruin are actually strengthened by that process.

There are better alternatives.

 

[JaysonR]

In regard to:​

Those who think it important that Awe is more than just a word to identify an emotion (and in that, whatever sparks the emotion):

Are you saying:​

That they are by some default incorrect to expect awe to exhibit a certain type of behaviour?

If by behavior, you mean something like a neurological response; then no.
If by behavior, you mean that we should expect someone to take a behavioral action socially or psychologically, then yes.

A magician can present awe to an audience, so can a solar eclipse.
Not all forms of awe are equal in a sense of therefore then driving someone to some existential ambition in action or life view.

There are moments in life which do this, but this is not an absolute guarantee for the emotional sensation of awe.

It would firstly need to be predated by some want of what ends up being involved in the awe, or satisfy some eagerness that was absent before.

If so, are you saying that it can be seen as a legitimate thing to try and tear down/berate etc those who chose to allow awe to inspire changes in behaviour and find ways to be kind to each other and help preserve our home planet by looking for ways in which to ‘get on the same page’ because it is by some default considered incorrect to expect the emotion inspired by awe to grow into something akin to spiritual concern?

This kind of isolates me into a corner between decisions that I don't really see as necessarily following from the previous.

I don't think it's generally useful to berate or tear down most things in general, but I don't relate that to indicating that there needs to be a life altering action-oriented behavior involved to validate the concept of awe as existent.

It would be somewhat like stating that Consciousness can be tested by whether a living thing is or is not spiritual.
The two concepts, while capable of being related to each other, are not exclusive.

Similarly, I don't see awe and action as mutually exclusive.

Further, even if someone experiences life altering awe, I wouldn't draw an immediate line to communal preservation.
Someone can have a life altering experience of awe and then derive from this an overwhelming ambition to kill people in mass amounts.

There's no exclusive relationship between life altering experiences of awe to benevolent or communally beneficial inspired actions.

Now, am I interested in communally beneficial actions and ideas?
Absolutely.
But I wouldn't link these to the description of what equates to awe.

Awe is one thing, life altering experiences another (which may include awe, or may not...perhaps they feel absolute terror rather than awe, for example), and communal beneficial behavior yet another.

 

[Navigator]

This kind of isolates me into a corner between decisions that I don't really see as necessarily following from the previous.

Okay well that wasn’t the intent of my questioning

I don't think it's generally useful to berate or tear down most things in general, but I don't relate that to indicating that there needs to be a life altering action-oriented behavior involved to validate the concept of awe as existent.

Of course not.

It would be somewhat like stating that Consciousness can be tested by whether a living thing is or is not spiritual.
The two concepts, while capable of being related to each other, are not exclusive.

I think that is why the thread ‘Are You Spiritual’ was asking the question...

Similarly, I don't see awe and action as mutually exclusive.

No – it is not about any hierarchy concept as to what emotion is the best, but it is about what actions are associated with certain emotions.

Further, even if someone experiences life altering awe, I wouldn't draw an immediate line to communal preservation.

No – but Carl Sagan did. Many do.
Others don’t see a connection.

Someone can have a life altering experience of awe and then derive from this an overwhelming ambition to kill people in mass amounts.

Really? I think if a mass murderer was in front of a Jury, and his/her lawyer pleaded “my client did the murders under the overwhelming inspiration of awe’ a Judge is likely dismiss this as some kind of deflection from guilt and remorse.
Society has other names for the things which inspire mass murderous, bullies, haters, destroyers, (did I mention terrorists?)

No one is saying that religious awe which motivates destructive behaviour is any kind of thing to call awesome. On the contrary – most agree it is delusion.

Even if neurological studies confirm that awe is related to an area of the brain and so too are feelings of hatred, or wanting to cause much hurt to society through mass murder, that would not conclude that the two things are thus the same.
It would only point to activity in that part of the brain happening in either instance.

There's no exclusive relationship between life altering experiences of awe to benevolent or communally beneficial inspired actions.

Of course not. But there is a relationship. Some people are inspired to kindness through even a whole bunch of life altering experiences. Are they to be recognised and treated as if they have some illness which needs to be cured, and ‘taken down a few pegs’ and berated until they finally admit that they are nothing special, and life is nothing special and they somehow need the ‘demon of childhood fantasy’ exorcised from their being?

Now, am I interested in communally beneficial actions and ideas?
Absolutely.
But I wouldn't link these to the description of what equates to awe.

Is this to say that there is no link or is this to say that the link is not necessary or what is this to say exactly?

Awe is one thing, life altering experiences another (which may include awe, or may not...perhaps they feel absolute terror rather than awe, for example), and communal beneficial behavior yet another.

Well they are separate things but they are also related (linked).

Spiritual Concern cannot truly be related to actions which are focused upon tearing down/berating those who choose to allow awe to inspire changes in behaviour and find ways to be kind to each other and help preserve our home planet by looking for ways in which to ‘get on the same page’.

Would you agree?

 

[JaysonR]

Nav;

I'm going to truncate to your final question as I think everything else really just funnels into this:

Spiritual Concern cannot truly be related to actions which are focused upon tearing down/berating those who choose to allow awe to inspire changes in behaviour and find ways to be kind to each other and help preserve our home planet by looking for ways in which to ‘get on the same page’.

Would you agree?

No, I don't agree.

There are multiple accounts in human history of behavior where humans engage in awe inspiring spiritual rituals to empower their ability to fight and kill.

What I gather from your deductions is what kind of person you are; a good natured person who wants to help people communally.

The relationships between emotions and actions are not guaranteed; otherwise humans would be near automatons or machines capable of very simple manipulation with near 100% duplication of result with no such concept of personal subjective experiences.

We would simply be able to blast everyone with chemical awe gas and save the world in peace.
This doesn't happen, however.

Instead, there are typical and atypical responses.
Coupled with the all important experiential context (what was the environmental experience for the emotional experience), and the individual's neurology (how their brain relates these impulses [is this an atypical brain or typical brain?]), we arrive at the output.

Some experiences are revolutionary to the individual and include sensations reaching awe; absolutely.

But it is not a guarantee that someone who feels awe will therefore conduct a particular behavioral action beyond the momentary sympathetic nervous system responses.

We cannot determine the subsequent psychology that is inherent to an emotional sensation.

Anger doesn't guarantee murder, love doesn't guarantee marriage, and awe doesn't guarantee communal preservation activities.

The idea one attached an emotion to is what more dictates the subsequent behavioral output.

For you, and many people, the conceptual idea attached to awe is of communal interest.

Given the resources and the right setting, I'm pretty sure that I could create a demographic who feels awe and extreme enthusiasm and from there justifies the idea of incredible acts of genocide, simply by linking the ideas and concepts to the emotions.

It's really more about the context of the emotions and the ideas that arrive in the mind while feeling them that dictates the result, more than just the emotions themselves.

 

[Explorer]

While I understand where you're coming from; this isn't exactly true.

Case in point, a rather mundane example, while I love watching and reading the 'behind-the-scene' content regarding how movies are made (including the production business end of decisions that resulted in different characters coming and going from movies and television series), my wife really does not appreciate being told any of this information as she feels that it completely ruins the fantasy of the experience for her because it tells how the magic trick was accomplished and renders it into something completely mundane.

The same is true regarding magician's tricks; she would rather not know as it ruins it for her, while for me, I am enriched even more by knowing the "how" of the magic tricks.

I don't think your film and magician analogies are totally valid.

When you know how the actors are managed, or how the special effects are designed, or how the magician stages his trick, then in indeed it can kill off the awe. However, with scientific explanations, it may kill off the awe for some at one level, but then proceeds to generate more awe at numerous other levels, as it raises new questions and provides answers, that lead to new discoveries about the universe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But the power of Prayer does exist in the experiences of those (perhaps billions) who use it.
[\QUOTE]

No, but the perception exists.

 

[Navigator]

Nav;

I'm going to truncate to your final question as I think everything else really just funnels into this:


No, I don't agree.

There are multiple accounts in human history of behavior where humans engage in awe inspiring spiritual rituals to empower their ability to fight and kill.

Yes but for today’s more enlightened society, such actions are seen to be based on delusion and ‘spirituality’ is not thought of in this way anymore.
As I said in my last post, we now have more appropriate names for such behaviour, as I commented regarding your using as example ‘an awe inspired mass murder’.

So I am not coming from some past understanding as to ‘what is spiritual’ and trying to relate it to the present.

I am taking the present understanding (as far as can be agreed) and if you went back through the posts in that thread, you would be hard pressed to find anyone posting claiming that such type behaviour (rituals to empower their ability to fight and kill) is ‘spiritual’ in the sense of how the word is commonly known today.

On the emotion of awe and related actions, there is some contradiction attached when trying to claim that the attitude and accompanying action which is purposefully trying to bring someone down and get them to see that ‘reality’ is nothing important, be that the reality of ones own existence, the existence of Consciousness, Earth, or the Universe to derive from expressions inspired by awe.

Again:

How can something being used in trying to talk one out of seeing such things as awesome, derive from seeing such things as nothing to be in awe of?
There is contradiction.

 

[Navigator]

But the power of Prayer does exist in the experiences of those (perhaps billions) who use it.
[\QUOTE]

No, but the perception exists.

hi thaiboxerken

Throughout this thread 'the perception' is seen as part of what 'the power' is, even in relation to neurological studies go.

 

[Navigator]

I don't think your film and magician analogies are totally valid.

When you know how the actors are managed, or how the special effects are designed, or how the magician stages his trick, then in indeed it can kill off the awe. However, with scientific explanations, it may kill off the awe for some at one level, but then proceeds to generate more awe at numerous other levels, as it raises new questions and provides answers, that lead to new discoveries about the universe.

I think this is important observation. The uncovering of mystery always brings with it more mystery and each level of understanding should naturally promote awe

Carl Sagan says as much regarding his occupation and seeing 'the pale blue dot' - and related both our tiny place in the whole process and the importance of taking care of each other and the only home we have ever known (Earth).

 

[thaiboxerken]

hi thaiboxerken

Throughout this thread 'the perception' is seen as part of what 'the power' is, even in relation to neurological studies go.

You are correct. Placebo can be powerful.

 

[Navigator]

You are correct. Placebo can be powerful.

Placebo has also been mentioned. At first I didn’t think it was relevant but have since thought more about it and perhaps placebo is more than just a word to describe ‘tricking the brain’ (or whatever the effect is doing) or ‘not scientifically regarded as real’ (not studied to see if it is valid) but rather using a still relatively unknown thing to heal oneself of some affliction which is ordinarily healed with one pharmaceutical drug or another.

 

[dlorde]

... perhaps placebo is more than just a word to describe ‘tricking the brain’ (or whatever the effect is doing) or ‘not scientifically regarded as real’ (not studied to see if it is valid) but rather using a still relatively unknown thing to heal oneself of some affliction which is ordinarily healed with one pharmaceutical drug or another.

There's no evidence that placebo can 'heal affliction' as you suggest, beyond known mental effects. It can improve perceived and reported well-being, but without measurable clinical improvement (except in stress or anxiety related illness, where the perception of improved well-being may reduce the stress or anxiety, with potentially beneficial effects).

In other words, it may make you feel better, but doesn't affect the underlying medical problem.

If a placebo is as efficacious as a drug for some problem, clearly the drug is having no more effect on that problem than a placebo, i.e. it is physiologically ineffective.

 

[Navigator]

There's no evidence that placebo can 'heal affliction' as you suggest, beyond known mental effects. It can improve perceived and reported well-being, but without measurable clinical improvement (except in stress or anxiety related illness, where the perception of improved well-being may reduce the stress or anxiety, with potentially beneficial effects).

In other words, it may make you feel better, but doesn't affect the underlying medical problem.

If a placebo is as efficacious as a drug for some problem, clearly the drug is having no more effect on that problem than a placebo, i.e. it is physiologically ineffective.

Placebo, Nocebo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

Importantly the observation has to do with internal issues of psychological or physiological health

The effect is observed from external positions. Much the same way a brain scan is.

The observers cannot possibly know what is going on internally in the observed, even if the observers are scanning the brain of the observed and seeing correlated evidence regarding the effect and what parts of the brain are activated by the effect.

 

[dlorde]

Placebo, Nocebo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

As the article says, "Both nocebo and placebo effects are entirely psychogenic", i.e. having origin in the mind, IOW mental effects.

What you're trying to say in the rest of that post is obscure.

 

[Navigator]

What you're trying to say in the rest of that post is obscure.

I cannot say it any clearer.

I will think on it and perhaps draw a diagram.