It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The logical progression that allows the human intellect to go from point A to point B in that situation just plain doesn't exist.
A cat appearing to chase hallucinations...this somehow equates to the development in a belief if non-corporeal intelligent life within the human mind?
I can acknowledge that, but the indications certainly are that no other animal on this planet shapes its daily life around the existence of non-corporeal beings as a pervasive definition of itself as a species.
What on earth could have allowed that to occur if the non-corporeal realm does not actually exist?
Originally posted by eight bits
The logical progression that allows the human intellect to go from point A to point B in that situation just plain doesn't exist.
It's called abstraction. It's a basic cognitive skill that humans have.
For example, imaginary friends. Children do that "incredibly creative feat" quite readily. It seems to be a spontaneous reinvention, and so perhaps the expression of an innate ability meeting an innate need.
I am unsure what it has to do with "logic." It is a performance. Also, other animals can perform abstraction, too.
Originally posted by NorEaster
So what am I suggesting? If widespread cultural impacts - like large centers of population - can affect the information contained within DNA (that one impact directly caused the shift in physiology that is indicated by the A blood type's emergence), then wide spread cultural impacts like beliefs that have been fully embraced can certainly affect the behavior-related information with human DNA
Originally posted by NorEaster
since human beings are more affected by social and intellectual changes that other creatures.
Okay, this may end up being a bit complicated, but I trust that you'll be up to the challenge, so I won't worry about your ability to stay with me.
The human intellect eventually overtakes the DNA and things like imaginary friends fade into the past for most of them.
Originally posted by eight bits
The human intellect eventually overtakes the DNA and things like imaginary friends fade into the past for most of them.
Fascinating, but your claim was that some extraordinary creative leap was required to come up with the idea of intelligences without bodies.
While you don't believe that a cat can do the required abstraction, you did acknowledge that an adult human watching the cat might think that the cat is "hunting imaginary mice." So, the idea is then and forever after in that adult's head. It really doesn't matter whether or not the adult's idea is an accurate description of the cat's behavior, the principle has been discerned, and can be applied to other things.
BTW, part of my thinking based on the belief that the cat is chasing invisible mice is to appreciate that it is adaptive behavior for the cat. The cat is practicing (or so I believe, again, it is irrelevant whether or not I am correct about the cat). So, I not only have the idea of "invisible animated things" but the further idea that they may be good for something, like target practice.
Similarly, you doubt that children can do the abstraction, but the adult who sees a child interacting with an imaginary friend can think similarly to the adult seeing a cat interact with imaginary prey. In fact, you're talking to an adult right now who has seen both phenomena, and has "connected the dots." Having two real-life observed instances would reinforce the notion that "intelligences without bodies" were a possibility.
Social interaction for a human is a lot like solitary hunting for a cat. It is adaptive, and something that vicarious practice may improve. (There is a Woody Allen joke about that in his movie Love and Death.
Q: Why are you such a great lover?
A: I practice a lot when I am alone.)
And, of course, some children don't give up their imaginary friends (or, as in real friendships, they acquire new friends and discard old ones as they grow up, but the "institution" of imaginary friendship persists... see also Woody Allen's comment above). It only takes one adult doing it, and other adults seeing that intelligences without bodies are a serviceable idea, and the Great Mystery of NorEaster is explained.
As I said, you're trying to pitch a variant of the discredited ontological argument. No amount of lipstick on that pig is going to help.
-
edit on 28-1-2011 by eight bits because: imaginary keystrokes.
It's completely counterintuitive to the corporeal brain to invent a noncorporeal version of itself.
Originally posted by eight bits
It's completely counterintuitive to the corporeal brain to invent a noncorporeal version of itself.
You think so, but I disagree for the reasons already stated.
There's no question of winning or losing. It's a discussion board.
Nice talking with you.
Originally posted by totalmetal
reply to post by NorEaster
I recently thought of something that is somewhat relevant here. In this age we refer to our celebrities as "stars." Now flash forward thousands of years (or backwards) and "stars" may or may not mean something else. Say that in the future everything is straight forward and stars just means the bright shining objects in the sky. The future people would then believe that all of our movies were acted out by the stars in the sky instead of our actors and actresses.
My point is this, long ago when things were not well understood, and kings and men were sometimes referred to as gods, maybe then it had a somewhat different meaning than we have now.
So, what do you think?
Originally posted by eight bits
It's completely counterintuitive to the corporeal brain to invent a noncorporeal version of itself.
You think so, but I disagree for the reasons already stated.
There's no question of winning or losing. It's a discussion board.
Nice talking with you.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by eight bits
It's completely counterintuitive to the corporeal brain to invent a noncorporeal version of itself.
You think so, but I disagree for the reasons already stated.
There's no question of winning or losing. It's a discussion board.
Nice talking with you.
Thanks eight bits - - - that's kind of the way I feel.
I've been following this from the beginning - - - and still don't get what's going on here.
I mean - - - does the OP have a belief and want everyone to figure out what it is? Or what?
Something is just not "clicking" on this thread.
Originally posted by Stalker619
I'm thinking a primitive man went on a hunting trip because he needed to provide for his family. He falls into a crevase on the mountain side being trapped for a few days. In that time he had bumped his head and had a vision of the moon overhead being the face of his significant other. Speaking to him and urging him on in his daily survival. He follows the trail of the sun and it reminds him of his father leading him home from hunts long ago.
Long story short he finally makes it home tells his fantastic hallucinations to his other. She believes him but the story is scewed. She tells the rest of the tribe that primitive man had seen a god/godess/spirit of the dead. Rest of the tribe worships him and he no longer has to hunt. He now has to come up with more elaborate stories to satisfy the tribes curiousness.
Watch the movie cast away with tom hanks.
Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by NorEaster
Very well thought out argument, however one can make such an argument and substitute non-corporeal entity (or the implication I would expect of what non-corporeal entity suggest, a supreme being), with any invention of a being that is non-existent. Bigfoot, the lochness monster, monsters, et al. Our brains are canalized, but they aren't perfect. We react to what we sense, not always being rational because we can't afford to be. In being attacked by a tiger, one doesn't stand and calculate his odds of surviving in different scenarios based on the velocity and weight of the tiger and the configuration of the surrounding terrain, one runs the other way. Reacting in order to survive.
In this same mode of thought arises superstition. Elements of superstition are prevalent across the animal kingdom, not only in humans. An early human desperate for rain fall may find a connection between the animals he kills, and rain, obviously a coincidence, but with no understanding of the nature of random events, cause and effect manifests itself. If I kill this kind of animal, it will rain, because that's what happened last time. Certainly from there attributing this relationship to another conscious but unseen entity is to be expected. Thence forth it becomes sort of a runaway process.
Desperation, superstition, and reaction
Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by NorEaster
I previously mentioned the 'bicameral mind'.
I'm sure you must have heard of Julian Jaynes theory.
Is it not at least one possibility?
To quote one of your own quotes, which may be relevant
"In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God"
Or even...
Ancient religions for the most part involve some degree of astronomy.
A one off inexplicable event could easily give birth to the idea of a non corporeal god.
Something no longer observable or relevant with the passage of time could leave it's mark.
And heaven for some people is 'up there', and the gods come from the sky.
etc...etc
And what about the Jungian school of thought...that these ideas/concepts/gods/whatever
arise from within?
“There is no use trying; one can't believe impossible things." (Alice)
"I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Queen