The_Ghostess_Lola

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3201

MindWalk wrote:

While it is clear that emotional intelligence has a role to play in the living of life, it's not at all clear how emotional intelligence has a role to play in the formation of beliefs about what is and is not so--except, of course, when it comes to assessing how people feel.

Of course it's not at all clear to you, 'cuz you're probably well below an E IQ of 85. IOW's, it's one of your weaker (est ?) personality traits.

You asked the Brazilian Prince earlier about what your own soul was comprise of....remember ?....why didn't that surprise me love ?........

pawnwhacker

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3202

If one must insist that Einstein had a religion, then call it what it is: pantheism. Same with Spinoza and his monads.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

re: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

The_Ghostess_Lola

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3203

....and MW ?....I think you're a liar. You're biggest lie has been the one claiming to not be an atheist. Scared of something ?........

And something else....you're always trying to manipulate words. Well, there's some ppl you won't fool w/ those words sweetie.

pawnwhacker

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3204

Oh, grow up, Lola!

To my friends who would like to learn more about Spinoza, here is a book that I am currently reading. It is contemporary and written by a brain surgeon:

Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain [Kindle Edition]

re: http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Spinoza-Sorrow-Feeling-Brain-ebook/dp/B004H1U2II/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1425313463&sr=1-1&keywords=looking+for+spinoza

pawnwhacker

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3205

Just one of the reviews on this book:

117 of 125 people found the following review helpful

Humanism from a neurobiologist, December 17, 2003

By

Dennis Littrell

This review is from: Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain (Paperback)

Part of this is a celebration of the 17th century Rationalist philosopher Baruch Spinosa whose world view is very much in concert with that of Antonio Damasio. Spinosa's demolition of Descartes' mind/body duality is the thread that Damasio takes up and weaves into this graceful and agreeable narrative. Furthermore, it is Spinosa's recognition that we are part of, and contained within, nature and not materially different from nature (another of Descartes' errors) that attracts Damasio's admiration for Spinosa.

Leaving aside this framing device I want to concentrate on Damasio's argument about the nature of humans based on his experience as a neurobiologist, which is really the core of this book.

Damasio recognizes that feelings, like consciousness itself, are perceptions, not states of mind. What is being perceived is the state of the body itself, and what is doing the perceiving is the brain. In this understanding--and I think it is a felicitous one--the brain operates as a sixth sense, something like the so-called third eye of the Hindus. It is not, of course, a supernatural sixth sense, but a sense organ in addition to the other five whose job it is to perceive the homeostasis of the organism, a sense organ that looks within instead of without. Instead of the sensation of color or sound, the sixth sense perceives emotions.

Of course the Van Allen Distinguished Professor of Neurology at the University of Iowa Medical Center does not use such a term as "sixth sense" nor would he allude to the third eye of the Hindus. He is a neurologist, a scientist and (despite his demurral) a philosopher. I mention these other ways of "knowing" in an attempt to provide a larger context for Damasio's argument.

This argument is not original with Damasio (and I don't think he would claim it is). In one sense it is derivative from the growing understanding that consciousness itself, a kind of meta-awareness, is actually a perception. Damasio's "feelings" are part of this consciousness.

A further part of Damasio's argument is that emotions are prior to feelings. First there is an emotionally competent stimulus (ECS). Then there is an "appraisal" of that stimulus which results in appropriate and automatic emotion, followed by feelings based on a perception of the emotion and the external situation. This is on-going, and we usually don't notice it. In extreme cases, such as danger, our feelings are more pronounced. In Damasio's scheme, an ECS might be a grizzly bear come upon suddenly while hiking. The "appraisal" would be the recognition that this is a bear, that it is big and it is potentially dangerous. The "emotion" would be all the systemic glandular, chemical and muscular responses in preparation for the flight or fight response. The "feeling" itself would be what we call fear.

Damasio attempts to explain the experience of feelings in anticipation of "naysayers" who contend that such things are eternal mysteries. He makes a distinction between what, say, a Boeing 777 with all its sensing devices might "feel" and how humans feel. The crux of Damasio's distinction is the enormously greater complexity of the biological organism. But this argument, beginning on page 126, is not satisfactory because it does not explain the subjective experience of pain, which is what the "naysayers" are really talking about.

What I think Damasio should say is that we can never know what the Boeing 777 is feeling (or if it is "feeling") since feelings are subjective experiences. They can only be recognized in ourselves (if we have them) and identified with in the report of others. It is the same as trying to explain what the color red looks like to a blind person or how strawberries taste to someone who has never tasted one. Analogies and comparisons may be drawn, but there is no way that I can ever be sure that I feel what you feel or that the subjective nature of any sensuous experience between one entity and another is the same.

In the fourth chapter, "Ever Since Feelings," Damasio attempts to account for how feelings arose in an evolutionary sense. He believes they help complex organisms solve complex problems. (p. 177) "Body-state maps" work automatically for most organisms, but, Damasio argues, with emotions made conscious through the experience of feeling, humans are able to achieve not only a "concern for the individual self" but with "sufficient integration of the now, the past, and the anticipated future" a more effective game plan for survival and well-being. (p. 178) Feelings signal the conscious mind to become involved and this has proven adaptive.

What I think is profound about this argument is how naturally it would have arisen from the evolutionary experience. Before humans and other sophisticated animals arose, most creatures probably made little or no distinction between themselves and their environment. Their responses were mostly automatic and they had no sense of self. Along comes this great leap forward called consciousness and it works because it makes us more effective at protecting ourselves. It also makes us more fearful of death, of course, which is part of the human predicament.

Despite some difficulties, I am very much impressed with Damasio's effort, and I think that his approach from neuroscience and biological evolution, and through the use of scientific experiment, is eons ahead of the old schools in psychology which attempted to understand human beings based on arbitrary models such as psychoanalytic theory or on limited approaches such as behaviorism. But it must be realized (as I'm sure Damasio does) that we are at a tentative stage of understanding. Some even say that we will never be able to completely understand how our brain works. Some even cite Russell's paradox and Godel's proof about the limitations of self-referential systems (the brain/body is such a system) and deny that it is even theoretically possible for us to completely understand ourselves. Maybe only our artifacts, our computers will be able to understand us.

--Dennis Littrell, author of "The World Is Not as We Think It Is"

The_Ghostess_Lola

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3206

From #3322, the Professor obviously gets it. Now that's someone w/ emotional intelligence. And PP ?....I luvya for this so meaningful interpretation........

Just FYI, I've learned alot-alot-alot from this thread about the makeup of an atheist....and it has vastly strengthened my belief in a Creator........strength I never thought was there....and I sincerely want to say thank you to the guinea pig atheist....you've helped me grow leaps in spirit (if they only knew how much).

pawnwhacker

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3207

Piffle. All you have been as of late is a troll. All trolls do is roil, rag and cause mindless consternation. Give your friend zborg my regards.

Elroch

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3208

If someone likes watching soaps, no number of non-soap watchers is going to inspire them not to.

pawnwhacker

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3209

True. Speaking of which, it looks like hapless has fled the scene once again. Either that or he must have something very, very important to do. Perhaps he has simply run out of ideas for righteous indignation.

One thing seems clear about this thread, and I am not looking for a pat on the back, but when the OP is not a religious zealot the stupid people don't take over while the intelligentsia is blocked.

ProfessorProfesesen

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3210

Also helps if you have selective hearing.

pawnwhacker

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3211

Meaning?

ProfessorProfesesen

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3212

I don't think you want find the 'Truth', whatever that is. It is more about holding your ground. To assert yourself, your being. In that struggle you find yourself when you are opposed. That is your truth, your being.

It is an existential act. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Courage-Create-Rollo-May/dp/0393311066)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Courage-Be-Paul-Tillich/dp/0300084714

Elroch

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3213

Bad news for various groups and great news for the world as a whole: google is planning to improve its search engine rankings.

Sad to say, many ancient books will not be considered inviolate sources.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links.html

ProfessorProfesesen

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3214

Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer

The philosophy of religion and the quest for spiritual truth preoccupied Albert Einstein--so much that it has been said "one might suspect he was a disguised theologian." Nevertheless, the literature on the life and work of Einstein, extensive as it is, does not provide an adequate account of his religious conception and sentiments. Only fragmentarily known, Einstein's ideas about religion have been often distorted both by atheists and by religious groups eager to claim him as one of their own. But what exactly was Einstein's religious credo? In this fascinating book, the distinguished physicist and philosopher Max Jammer offers an unbiased and well-documented answer to this question.

The book begins with a discussion of Einstein's childhood religious education and the religious atmosphere--or its absence--among his family and friends. It then reconstructs, step by step, the intellectual development that led Einstein to the conceptions of a cosmic religion and an impersonal God, akin to "the God of Spinoza." Jammer explores Einstein's writings and lectures on religion and its role in society, and how far they have been accepted by the general public and by professional theologians like Paul Tillich or Frederick Ferré. He also analyzes the precise meaning of Einstein's famous dictum "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," and why this statement can serve as an epitome of Einstein's philosophy of religion.

The last chapter deals with the controversial question of whether Einstein's scientific work, and in particular his theory of relativity, has theologically significant implications, a problem important for those who are interested in the relation between science and religion. Both thought-provoking and engaging, this book aims to introduce readers, without proselytizing, to Einstein's religion.

pawnwhacker

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3215

ProfessorProfesesen wrote:

I don't think you want find the 'Truth', whatever that is. It is more about holding your ground. To assert yourself, your being. In that struggle you find yourself when you are opposed. That is your truth, your being.

**********************************

Are you speaking in general or about me in particular? It would help if you could clarify this statement.

Royale-Prince

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3216

MindWalk: The Fox sisters wasn't just fraud. This is what happened: the two sisters had mediunity, but at some point they started to ask for money and try to do things out of their capacity. Then both lost the mediunity and become to do frauds. A true start and a fake end. The sisters was never used by Allan Kardec, even because, as you saw, they was American and him French. He just mentioned they as an example of real mediunity, in the beggining.

But you have all the others... So what against them? Nothing.

As you can see, proves are everywhere and everytime. Honestly, if you are really "desperately to believe", you have already more than enough to do it...

But I now believe that maybe most part of people here, in fact, are included in St. Augustine sentence:

"For those who wants to believe, any single word is enough. For those who don't want to, no word will be enough".

Royale-Prince

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3217

pawnwhacker wrote:

For other readers, he just said: "I am well yes, and with you? In fact, you're writing very well in Portuguese! It is rare to see this ..."

My response: Estamos adquirindo-nos muita neve onde sou, neste tempo. Espero que você esteja gostando do seu tempo cheio de sol.

Sim, aqui está muito calor e o tempo ensolarado. Quero que o inverno chegue, para amenizar a temperatura... Não chega a nevar na parte do país em que estou, mas é meio frio.

Está nevando no seu paí? Então estamos no extremo: aqui muito quente e aí muito frio!

pawnwhacker

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3218

He said: "Yes, here it's hot and sunny weather. I want the winter to come and soften the temperature...It is not enough to snow in parts of the country where I am in, but it's kind of cold. It's snowing in your country ? So we are in the extreme: here very hot and very cold there!

*******************

My response: Acabei de voltar da Sibéria onde há muito frio e neve. Agora eu sou quente. Há sempre o xadrez! E discutir com pessoas estúpidas nos fóruns .

xadrez means chess

I told him we are having nice weather and enjoying friendly games of chess and intelligent conversation in the forums. Something like that.

ProfessorProfesesen

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3219

pawnwhacker wrote:

ProfessorProfesesen wrote:

I don't think you want find the 'Truth', whatever that is. It is more about holding your ground. To assert yourself, your being. In that struggle you find yourself when you are opposed. That is your truth, your being.

**********************************

Are you speaking in general or about me in particular? It would help if you could clarify this statement.

Life is about living. Or what we might call survival. That means ensuring that the life we have, the body, our organism doesn't die.

But life is complicated. It is not just physical. We live in the world that is physical + language (1).

For instance, if someone says, I am going to kill you. Even though it is not physical, it does have an impact.

Growing up, our survival depends a great deal on fitting in. Or getting along with our family and the society. We have to accept their rules.

Religion can seem to be not about living, or freedom. It is as if it doesn't celebrate difference.

This can feel suffocating, unreasonable, and feel like the religious people don't want you to live.

But Being is living. To live is to assert ourselves. To overcome everything that doesn't wish us to exist.

This struggle doesn't have to be physical. It can be verbal. Our parents have a huge impact on our identity (2). Who we are and what we can do.

As we grow up, we feel we have to overcome their authority. So the struggle.

We have to find something 'real', or 'truth', something that cannot be denied, and believe in that. And live for that.

Then their (the parents, the many authorities, the govt, etc) authority no longer counts. Only the 'truth' counts.

This 'truth' becomes our ground. And we hold on to it.

The more they speak the more we oppose. And in that we find ourself. That we too deserve to exist. We find our existence. Our being.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For the idea that we live in language, there is scientific basis to it, called Relational Frame Theory.

(2) The struggle can be Oedipal as well.

ProfessorProfesesen

Mar 2, 2015

0

#3220

Lola messaged me and said she has been blocked.