My Beliefs- GDR

From my albeit rudimentary knowledge of neuroscience, I don't see this statement as being accurate.I am not sure how memory could be the predicate for an emotional response since infants can experience emotions of fear and anger in the earliest stages of development, long before they are capable of formulating even basic memories. I can potentially see accessing a memory as having the possibility of stimulating the areas of the brain responsible for emotion, but the memory is just another form of input, not the cause of the emotion in and of itself.If I see someone mis-treating another individual for example, my emotion of anger will be triggered by virtue of the visual and auditory stimuli at that time. I don't have to reference a previous memory to invoke my emotion.From my initial searching on the subject, the area of the brain that appears to be responsible for emotion is the Amygdala. While the area of the brain responsible for memory is the Hippocampus. These areas light up differently in regards to fMRI scans when the subject is undergoing an emotional response of some sort.

Actually, the question of choice there is somewhat up for debate.Individuals with various forms of psychopathy lack the ability to have empathy, thereby making any altruistic behavior difficult. I don't think this is a 'huge segment' of the population, as you suggest since if individuals with inherent selfishness existed in large quantities, our society would likely collapse.The concept of psychopathy and its genetic component actually gives further credence to the scientific explanation of altruism, as opposed to the 'faith based' alternatives you are suggesting.

What this statement signifies is that you are actually invoking a form of circular reasoning. Or 'Assuming the Conclusion', as it is sometimes known.Essentially, you have already come to your conclusion that 'Tom' is responsible for various aspects of our morale and perhaps, biological attributes. No facts lead to this conclusion, it is simply 'faith'.From that point, you begin to work backwards to 'find' evidence that supports your conclusion and discounting the evidence that goes against your conclusion. You are, in essence, cherry picking. But the manner and way you are making selections is very arbitrary.I recognize that this thread is about 'your beliefs', but ultimately, what the other posters are attempting to demonstrate is that your beliefs will deny facts and reality when they feel threatened. And the above statement regarding science confirms it.

But once again, this is a supposition on your part as opposed to a tangible statement of fact.I am no neuroscientist, but the condition of psychopathy, as far as I know, is not a simple 'affliction' as you put it. It is actually a genetic condition at birth. i.e., the individual displaying this condition has a brain that is hard-wired differently.To draw an analogy (and I am doing this from my own experience in the computer software space): a computer has both hardware and software. You can get problems associated with both. A software 'bug' or issue is inherent to the programming code that is producing whatever application you might be using. A hardware 'bug' or issue is an inherent defect in the machinery of the computer itself. There is a strong demarcation between these two 'afflictions'.So for example, as a software engineer, if I am attempting to get my program to behave a certain way, but my underlying hardware is malfunctioning, no amount of effort on my part can overcome this issue. It is no longer a 'choice' I can perform.In a similar vein, if an individual has an issue with the machinery of their brain, choices are no longer simply a matter of selection. The brain itself, at the 'hardware' level, is not wired correctly. (Or wired differently; however you want to put it)P.S. And thank you for the welcome. I have been a lurker here for some time; nice to become an active participant.

Apparently, it can be discovered even in early childhood using fMRI scans. Which does give credence to the notion that it is a genetic trait.The main distinction, and I should have clarified this earlier, is that the actual genetic component is a lack of empathy, which then eventually manifests into psychopathy. Drawing back to my computer analogy, the software appears to be mis-behaving, but it is the underlying hardware that is at fault.

Interesting read. I had not come across that literature before.Charles Whitman, the infamous mass shooter at the University of Texas in Austin was also discovered to have a brain tumor at the time of his autopsy. The Connally Commission actually reported its fundings thusly:

quote:

---

Their report also said this lesion "conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions."[17] Forensic investigators have theorized that the tumor may have been pressed against the nearby amygdalae regions of his brain. The amygdalae are known to affect fight/flight responses. Some neurologists have since speculated that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks, in addition to his personal and social frames of reference.

---

Once again, fairly definitive proof that our brain is the ultimate source of our emotions and inherent personality traits and that damage or dysfunction in the brain can lead to alterations in one's inherent consciousness.

I am not certain about the scientific veracity of your view, but my guess is that the 'happiness' factor is a re-enforcement of the overall mechanism as opposed to the cause.Altruism benefits a social group. The action of being altruistic leads to a more cohesive societal group and increases the likelihood of survival for the group. A re-enforcing aspect of altruism is a feeling of 'happiness' (if we want to call it that) through action of doing something that benefits another member of your social group. But it is not the 'happiness' per se that leads to the genes being passed. It is the altruism itself.A good analogy would be the benefits of exercise. Moderate exercise is good for our bodies; it reduces stress, it maintains muscle tone, reduces the likelihood of cardiovascular problems, etc. For those like myself who like to exercise, we get a 'high' after our workouts which is attributed to an endorphin release which is part of our overall autonomic feedback system.
But it is not the 'high' that is the cause of the benefit, it is merely a re-enforcing consequence of the benefit of exercise. For example, if I artificially produced a 'high' with no exercise (i.e. through drugs for example), I may get the same short term effect of 'happiness', but I am not actually reaping the benefits of the exercise itself, which is the main predicate.

I don't quite know what you are asserting here. You state your god cannot be known by science but can be known in a 'believable' sense? Aren't you in essence committing the logical fallacy of 'Argument from Ignorance' here?P.S. Not calling you 'ignorant' per se, just calling out the fallacy in question.

I don't consider that to be a good analogy. While we may not 'know' when it might rain, we have various predictive models regarding weather patterns and events. And ultimately, when it starts raining, the belief moves to knowledge. But you asserted that belief in god or in a form of Christianity essentially indicates that belief can never become knowledge? Is that what you are stating?

Fair enough. Although you may want to read up on the predictions of renowned physicist, Michio Kaku. He discusses our evolution as a species from Type 0 to Type 1. At the Type 1 stage, we will actually become a fully planetary civilization, harnessing the full output of our planet. With that, not only will we be able to 'know' the weather, we will actually be able to control it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj_UKcBBSccOne can view this as science fiction. But as our modern age has shown us, science fiction has a funny way of becoming science fact.Edited by Diomedes, : Embedded youtube wasn't working.

One of many Canucks on this board. And for the record, while I currently live in the United States, I grew up and went to school in Southern Ontario, Canada, near the greater Toronto area.

Are you honestly suggesting that the bible is explaining the concept of addiction and how its component aspects manifest in our brain by citing that passage in Romans?Romans 7:15 is making reference to original sin, which is the primary component of Christian doctrine. It is not calling out specific behavior and suggesting a biological component. It is making reference to the inherent sinful nature of man. It is essentially a pre-amble to describe the situation before the actions of Christ. You can see this as an obvious preamble by reading further into Romans:

quote:

---

Romans 8:1-4
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus HAS MADE ME FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

---

What is obvious is precisely that: it is obvious and does not require any divine intervention to point out what is patently obvious. The assertion that the Bible actually provides something profound from a biological standpoint as it pertains to addiction is, in my opinion, incorrect.The bible provides a statement describing a feeling common to many; that of helplessness regarding one's actions. That is not in any way prophetic: it is merely stating the obvious. But then it moves forward in the next passages and attributes that feeling to 'original sin', thereby giving credence to its doctrine. Which is in actuality incorrect. Unless you are implying that 'original sin' is somehow making reference to genetic predispositions. I would call that quite a stretch of the imagination.