PDA

View Full Version : Beliefs, Spirituality, and why we believe.



LeBrok
04-02-13, 05:20
I would like to present couple of articles I wrote about beliefs, spirituality and possible origin of both. In future I will expend them and link to relevant research papers.

LeBrok
04-02-13, 05:20
Why do we believe?

We commonly use word “believe” or “beliefs” in religious context, but when we give it a good thought, it turns out that we believe mostly in everyday things, things we didn’t see, but had been told about by others.

But first, just to make sure that we all think about same thing, here is the definition:
Google: belief - An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

To observe common beliefs, let’s go back to being a very small kid. Once we learned to understand human speech, to understand our parents and siblings, a grand volume of information we took happened purely on beliefs, on blindly believing our parents. At this age we didn't have time to empirically experience most of the world by seeing, touching, hearing with our own senses. Most of new knowledge came from lips of parents. We naively (I don’t mean wrongly) believed in everything parents told us, and I don’t know an example of small kids heavily questioning parental knowledge, but rather asking many questions to suck in more and more information. With the same trust to our parents we believed in ice-cream stand around the corner, which we never saw before, that grandma is going to visit us soon, or that Santa Clause will give us presents.

This learning process from our childhood shows us that believing is a very natural aspect of being a kid. This ability never fades away, but only gets modified during our life. Perhaps we should ask a question:
“Why believing and beliefs are so important for humans that this function is engraved in our nature from day one?”

The simplest answer that I came up with is: We need to believe parents and others to learn faster, and that the knowledge taken on beliefs is almost same valid as knowledge from personal experiences of physical world. Evolutionarily speaking, this was embraced and fortified in our ancestors by natural selection, because it improved survival of our spices by learning about danger before we could see it and loose life in process. Or learn from someone speech about a new food source. All this important knowledge without physics being there and seeing it.
At some point in our past we developed a very good memory, when compared to other animals, chimps included. Together with this capability we developed language of thousands of words and grammar for better understanding. In short, the speech is the best tool in nature for communication and learning.

But what would the spoken language be worth if there was no belief in words? Other words; would we continue using language if we didn't believe the person who talked to us?
It is hard to say if belief was first or the spoken language was, or if belief grew on other human trait called Trust.
Little animals trust their parents and follow them to pasture, water, and everywhere else.
Whatever was the beginning of trust, the fact is that it exists and, we can easily define it. We can say that the feeling of Trust makes us believe in whatever parents say. Trust is the positive, nice, uplifting, safe feeling towards some people.
Mr. Google:”Trust: firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.” I would add that, in realm of believes, “trusting parents” and “believing parents” could be one and same thing and possibly same origin.

I would conclude that state of believing and trusting is the primal and principal state of our mind. The ability we are born with to experience and learn about the world in fastest possible way.
The state of doubt and disbelief is the secondary, “unnatural” and learned state of our mind.

Later in childhood, our total trust and beliefs in parental stories and teachings get dents when we learn that they don’t know everything. Like hearing from others that Santa Clause is not real, creating confusion in little brains and the first doubt. Only then with time, we learn that not everything we hear is true, and become somewhat skeptical. This is more logical and deductive process than blind trust that we are born with. We also learn that even if we trust people, people don’t remember perfectly or they can simply lie to us on purpose. Even in cases when parent s meant well, and created stories for our enjoyment and our good, our belief system gets compromised once we learn the truth.
In mid adulthood many of us had time to analyze our learned believes and draw conclusions what we want to believe. Some of us turned to empiricism, and only believe proven by science things. For some reason, most of us didn't and still rely on others in building their understanding of our world, together with believing in spiritual beings, the way their parents did.

LeBrok
04-02-13, 05:21
Spiritual Beliefs

That brings us to spiritual beliefs. One of a kind beliefs that make us believe in invisible but conscious forces greater than ourselves controlling and interacting with our lives.

Firstly there is overwhelming evidence that most of people have the same spiritual beliefs as their parents. This puts spiritual believes in strong correlation (uses the same base in human mind) with common believes, described above. Without this base of beliefs and trust nobody would accept spiritual beliefs from their parents or community leaders. Manifesting itself in different form every generation, but we know it isn't. Example, Buddhist parents have Buddhist kids.
However, there are examples of people who have spiritual beliefs, but they got changed over time. In form of different religion, non-religious believing in UFO, or just believing in greater or mystical something out there, spirits of ancestors, and all superstition. Generally speaking anything that explains the unexplainable from the past (like sickness of a child, till XX century), or will help them find better life in the future.


This points me to the fact, that spiritual belief is more complex than common believing. It is a need to believe in extra natural. It is more like a nagging feeling to go and look for god(s). For very spiritual people it is a terrible feeling to think that there is no higher purpose in their life, or higher entity guarding and directing them. Conversely, spiritual beliefs in higher power bring peaceful feeling, purpose and order to spiritual person.

There are more exciting elements for believers which organize religions bring to the equation. It includes belonging to the group, participating and helping each other, traditions and celebrations, singing and dancing. All of these elements are positive for the group unity and strength, therefore beneficial for group members too. Although religion brings positive aspects to the survival of its members, it has not much to do with spirituality, which I believe is hereditary, thus genetic in nature.
Religion has beliefs reinforcing impact, but it doesn't give or teach spirituality. Otherwise it is a socio-political institution for purpose of uniting people under one banner. We know that some religious members are there only for material gains, some only because of traditions learned from parents, some like being around people and singing together, some looking for guidance and moral support in their pain.
Beliefs, you can learn or be taught. Spirituality, you are born with, you either have it or you don’t.

How many people are truly spiritual among us?
Probably most, around 75%, if my observations are correct.
By my understanding spirituality started at least 300 thousand years ago, judging by first burials of Homo Erectus. Probably coincided with speech development and ability of formulating first questions: “Where do we go after death?”, “Why do I suffer so much?”, “Why my kids are dying?”.

I can see how evolutionary development of spirituality, bringing consoling answers and hope of paradise afterlife, could be beneficial to our ancestor’s survival, in light of their everyday hard lives. It echoes in proverb “When in fear, God is dear”, and similar ones can be found in every language. Spirituality, being such early development for Sapience, and highly beneficial one, it had time and purpose to become engraved in our DNA code. Possibly the same one, as recently found “God” gene, and perhaps more genes to be found.
It is not an outrageous or impossible idea at all. Did you ever ask yourself a question, “Why people are the only species who like sitting around fire, while the rest of animal kingdom runs away from it?” By archaeological finds we know that people tamed fire around 1 million years ago. I don’t need to mention how beneficial fire is to our species, I hope. We sit around fire with pleasure and it is only matter of time when someone puts food into it, lol.
I’m sure that our unusual fondness of fire is already in our DNA and it is just a matter of time to find which gene is the “Fire” one. Likewise other beneficial things from our not so far past are already found, like lactose persistent gene, or gene which helps with alcohol digestion with epicenter around Mediterranean Sea, place where beer was first invented 10k years ago.

These few simple examples can help us understand how our past is already written inside our DNA. I don’t see a reason not to believe that beneficial and long lasting spirituality, among our species, is not contained in our DNA already, and manifest itself by giving us a good, pleasant feeling when we think about greater supernatural beings overlooking our lives. On flip side we feel uneasy, sometime scared, when lost without god, and this pushes us to find one.
It highly resembles feeling of discomfort when we are hungry, that pushes us to find food, and very pleasant feeling when we eat and are full. If hunger is controlled by genes mostly, why can’t be the spirituality?

In conclusion when it comes to spiritual beliefs I can see two main ingredients, and both of them in mainly genetic form. One is ability to believe, second is spirituality (need to believe in supernatural).

Though, there might be a third ingredient in this equation: The belief or the feeling of self-importance. In sense of being necessary in god’s plan, having a purpose and being special. The Ego-centric gene? This is not necessarily a prerequisite for being a spiritual person, but it is found in most religions to the high degree.

nordicwarrior
04-02-13, 19:53
Alright Lebrok, I'm going to bite on this one...

If 75% of people are truly Spiritual, where might that leave the remaining 25%... Would this group have anything in common? (I must admit that I'm curious about your take on this subject matter due to your comments on previous threads.) Can we grade someone else's spiritual level, or can another person grade your spiritual level? Enquiring minds want to know! :)

LeBrok
04-02-13, 22:18
Alright Lebrok, I'm going to bite on this one...

If 75% of people are truly Spiritual, where might that leave the remaining 25%... Would this group have anything in common?

Yes, lack of spirituality. ;-)
I know what you meant though. I don't think there are other obvious sings of spirituality. You can have emotional people as well as stoic ones in this group, also smart and dumb, ugly and beautiful.


(I must admit that I'm curious about your take on this subject matter due to your comments on previous threads.) Can we grade someone else's spiritual level, or can another person grade your spiritual level? Enquiring minds want to know! :)
I think it only manifests itself in form of feelings, feeling that makes you look for god and feel its presence. General feeling that there is something greater out there.

The important part is that, as every human condition, spirituality is not evenly distributed through any population. Some people are strongly spiritual, some barely spiritual, more like a spectrum than black and white issue. This is regulated by level of feelings, making person strongly spiritual, medium or a little bit.
Let me use parallel from gastronomy again. Try to convince a very hungry person with huge appetite not to eat, or logically explain that it is better to eat later or much less. Going against strong emotions, other words going against one's nature, is almost impossible task. That's the reason behind so many failed diets, and still so many believers, stubbornly going against evidence, or rather lack of it.
Continuing the thought, a person with low spirituality, spirituality with less intense underlying feeling, is more susceptible to arguments or group agenda to quit religion or stop believing, or pretend not to. Though, left alone spiritual people will always drift according to their nature and start believing in super natural again.

Possibly level of spirituality is not evenly distributed along human races or continents either. I'm not sure but possibly it is more of a combination of spirituality with strong personal general feelings/emotions. One of very visible transition of strength of spirituality runs from North Europe to center of Africa. With north Europeans being cold on emotions and religious scale, through south Europe where people are more animated and impulsive, to center of Africa where people sing, dance few times a day, thanking god for everything and in every moment.

kamani
04-02-13, 23:17
One of very visible transition of strength of spirituality runs from North Europe to center of Africa. With north Europeans being cold on emotions and religious scale, through south Europe where people are more animated and impulsive, to center of Africa where people sing, dance few times a day, thanking god for everything and in every moment.

That's just the change in the manner of expressing oneself; but it's true northerners are usually more held back. Each place has some spiritual and some materialistic people.

nordicwarrior
05-02-13, 01:16
That's a helpful analogy Lebrok, and I agree with most of it. I do think those in the North though can be just as spiritual (both in number as well as intesity) as people native to the equator, except nordic individuals are usually more reserved so it may be harder to tell on the surface.

hope
05-02-13, 05:32
LeBrok
It is hard to say if belief was first or the spoken language was, or if belief grew on other human trait called Trust. [QUOTE]



I like you, would say as a child [possibly even as a baby] belief builds first on trust .

[ In general ] , our parents meet our needs, supply us with food, cuddles, play, encouragement, love etc. Therefore our associations with them are "positive". We feel safe with them, we "trust" them.
So naturally when they tell us something we have no reason not to believe it to be so. They are a "trusted informant ".

[QUOTE]Together with this capability we developed language of thousands of words and grammar for better understanding. In
short, the speech is the best tool in nature for communication and learning.

I agree, once we have the ability to understand and use language and make the connection that the parents have the answers, this usually kicks starts the progress of .."Who, What, Where, Why" etc [ strangely this coincides with the same time parents head more often for the aspirin!]
Even with things the child cannot visually see, such as germs, when told to wash hands to get rid of them the child has faith to believe there are germs and will wash their hands.
The parent may also pass on their own beliefs at this point.

When it comes time for school, the teacher will usually be seen as the next trusted informant. What she teaches will be accepted without much question. If in doubt he will probably observe the reactions of his class friends for guidance.."endorsement"


Lessons learned at this time may became long term beliefs..the belief it is wrong to lie or steal etc. They may not be reaccessed until later.

Interesting post LeBrok.

LeBrok
05-02-13, 08:24
LeBrok[QUOTE]It is hard to say if belief was first or the spoken language was, or if belief grew on other human trait called Trust. [QUOTE]



I like you, would say as a child [possibly even as a baby] belief builds first on trust .

[ In general ] , our parents meet our needs, supply us with food, cuddles, play, encouragement, love etc. Therefore our associations with them are "positive". We feel safe with them, we "trust" them.
So naturally when they tell us something we have no reason not to believe it to be so. They are a "trusted informant ".
.
What amazes me the most is that this Trust is already there during first contact with mother. There is no grace period in which child would test mother to see if she is trustworthy. From almost day one child is making contact with mother's eyes, mimics her smile, later repeats sounds learning to talk. Trust seams to be an automatic and unconditional phenomenon. Of course love and nourishment is highly encouraging for building more trust and bond, and proper development of kid, but it seams that we are born already trusting our mothers. This point us to genetic roots of it, and predisposition.
It could be also seen in other mammals. They don't speak, like we do, therefore all communication and learning progresses mostly by looking at parents and their actions. Can we say: seeing is believing?
If new born animals didn't have this unconditional trust from beginning why would they follow mothers from day one? Wouldn't they got up (like little dear or elephant minutes after birth) and roam aimlessly around, learning by themselves?
Trust might be this primary, and genetic in nature, feeling of bond and safety (very positive emotion), prerequisite for believing, thus fast learning. A very positive evolutionary trait, I must add.

LeBrok
05-02-13, 08:38
That's a helpful analogy Lebrok, and I agree with most of it. I do think those in the North though can be just as spiritual (both in number as well as intesity) as people native to the equator, except nordic individuals are usually more reserved so it may be harder to tell on the surface.
So far I'm leaning with the later. Though, we see the effect of both at same time, spirituality and emotions, thus hard to evaluate them separately.

FBS
15-02-13, 14:53
@LeBrok

You will find very good answers regarding the language, beliefs and trust in Spiral Dynamics theory, Meme-tics by Richard Dawkins and others (my favorite is "Virus of the Mind" by ex-Microsoft programmer Richard Brodie) and writings on Ego by Susan Cook-Greuter or Eckhart Tolle.

LeBrok
16-02-13, 06:08
@LeBrok

You will find very good answers regarding the language, beliefs and trust in Spiral Dynamics theory, Meme-tics by Richard Dawkins and others (my favorite is "Virus of the Mind" by ex-Microsoft programmer Richard Brodie) and writings on Ego by Susan Cook-Greuter or Eckhart Tolle.
Thanks for leads. I've never read the whole book, though many times read about memes in articles offline and online.
I liked Dawkins approach to memes the most, but Brodie demanded too much from memes, complicated them. Well, memes are like software and he is a programmer, so it is kind of understandable. ;) This is actually easily assimilated by most people I know. They want to believe that nurture (software) is the most responsible for our behavior and feels better thinking that we are free willed people operating on ideas, and not the servants of hardware, our DNA.

Something tells me that the later is the case though. That the DNA, hardware part, is greatly underestimated. Our programming and predispositions can easily explain why diets don't work well, although they are powerful memes and people on diet believe in them. Why 90% people overweight lose battle to food then? The explanation is in hardware, if you are programmed to like food a lot, you won't change it through memes, even most powerful ones. Implementing diet is essentially going against your nature. And it is terribly hard thing to do! Not impossible, but so damn hard.

Take a nervous and depressed individual. He can spend whole life going to psychologist doing sessions after session, blaming parents, bad events, etc, tries to improve by learning new memes, new way of thinking to fight his "demons", and all the rest of psychological mambo-jumbo. Or he goes to the doctor gets the antidepressant pill (from long list of new pills these days/technology), it changes how his hardware works, and after a month he is a much happier easy going person.

That's what I mean when I say that Trust, to me, looks more of a hardware programmed/DNA function. Trust is ON, when we are born. I'm also glad that we have ability to take our trust away, once we learn someone is lying. Otherwise we would be screwed, lol.

FBS
20-02-13, 11:11
DNA - gets re-programmed continually in response to the environment. It is a never ending quest, otherwise we would have been extinct long time ago.

Regarding memes, it seems that you have misunderstood the whole concept. It is the other way around, we have to learn to understand what the meme is in order not to be their pray. A set of memes create our programming or Ego as some define it. If we give in to them we will never be able to get the hold of our self, in other words we will not be able to self-manage, therefore cannot hold to a diet or a healthy regimen.

LeBrok
22-02-13, 05:15
DNA - gets re-programmed continually in response to the environment. It is a never ending quest, otherwise we would have been extinct long time ago.
Well, lets say that expression of DNA changes with time (age of organism) and also due to environment factors, epigenetics. The former changes are programmed into DNA itself, the later are the true epigentic ones. DNA as a whole is stable through entire life, and the same copy in all body cells, disregarding small mutations during cell divisions, and damage done by free radicals.
Jury is still out what kind of changes and how big impact environment can bring.
For example, we know that we grow taller when our environment is reach in food. In 1850 average American was 5'7" and 146 pounds, but by 1980 it is 5'10" and 174lb. Most other examples are related to diseases rather than positive epigentic changes. The field is very young and lots to learn, let's leave it at that.

If it comes to extinction and evolution, it doesn't work the way you suppose, by individuals adopting to new environment therefore giving new traits to next population.
For example, if you are lactose intolerant person drinking milk everyday won't make your DNA to develop a mutation for lactose tolerance. Epigenetics doesn't work here (as in most cases) and once lactose intolerant you remain one for the rest of your life. Almost all mutations happen by accident, mistakes during first divisions of your cells. Also during production of mothers eggs of father sperm.
Now when it happens that you lived 6000 years ago with first cow herders, and you where born with lactose persistent mutation (ability to digest milk even after puberty) , this would have given you a tremendous advantage of new food source as an adult. Increased your chance of survival and therefore for your kids and their kids. And it continues till present, because this mutation of DNA was a very beneficial one. This is how main aspect of evolution works. There are others but not relevant here.



Regarding memes, it seems that you have misunderstood the whole concept. It is the other way around, we have to learn to understand what the meme is in order not to be their pray. A set of memes create our programming or Ego as some define it. If we give in to them we will never be able to get the hold of our self, in other words we will not be able to self-manage, therefore cannot hold to a diet or a healthy regimen.
Why do you think there are only bad memes and we have to get rid of them?
Without memes we wouldn't know how to start fire, make food, make tools, go to school and learn math, and run city or a nation. Well, we would be like simple animals, right? Actually, the idea about memes is a meme itself, and so are ideas about how to hold the diet, how to eat, and why we should stay healthy.

Start believing in hardware. :)

FBS
22-02-13, 11:28
There are no good or bad memes, same as there are no good or bad genes. There are simply successful and non-successful ones. Those that are successful in adapting and keeping us alive will go on, both genes and memes. I simply said that we need to understand to have insight.

LeBrok
23-02-13, 02:45
There are no good or bad memes, same as there are no good or bad genes. There are simply successful and non-successful ones. Those that are successful in adapting and keeping us alive will go on, both genes and memes. I simply said that we need to understand to have insight.
That's right, in grand scheme of things, nothing is good or bad, it just is.

However, if we define good and bad in terms of benefits for the population, group of people for example, then we could use these terms to describe events or actions, as being good/beneficial, or bad/destructive to the group, or a person. In this context we could see that meme, how to build a tool, is good meme, or we could use term bad meme to describe use of cocaine.

C-in-fl-usa
07-02-14, 19:53
MY EXPERIENCE
I'm finding it extremely interesting that the countries where I-M253 is more prevalent (Scandinavia), they are also less religious, lack a belief in a god especially in Denmark, the location of M253s origin. For an unknown reason, the Czech Republic has virtually no religion or belief in a god. I am M253 and atheist. Now, historically Scandinavia resisted Christianity until sometime after 800 AD. This I was not aware of until a few months ago. I had no curiosity about Christianity. What factor caused a non-compliance or revulsion to conversion? The Scandinavians had their own gods. Christianity was well thought out. Two directions to take. One direction gave you "hall pass" and the other direction was a one-way trip to Satan's bouillabaisse... all from a dictator deity that loves you. Conversion for Swedes, Danes, Norse, northern Germans was accept or die. Well, who wouldn't lie on that to save their life?

I was adopted at 2 weeks after birth but grew up with siblings that were "blood siblings" with the same mother and father. We were close in age. I was 8 months older than one and 2 years older than the other. Nurturing was exactly the same. We did everything together until near adulthood. I am quite the opposite of them politically, socially, and in the spiritual which is nonsense to me. I found out my genetic heritage in mid-2013. That's just over 40 years of non-belief. I tried to become religious for a girl :grin: but it just seemed silly. I did feel a longing or connection and wished I was Scandinavian in origin as far back as age 10. This may seem "spiritual" to many but that's what I had hoped.

Believing in a god is emotional weakness in that one is accepting that they are incapable of making decisions and therefore hand rough things off to a deity. Or accomplishments are the work of a deity and one could not have done it on their own. That a deity saved a person or person's from an accident yet spared others (grace). Then there's the fear of death and a rather greedy attempt to keep living even though one has no physical body. Islam is worse in that one gets a crapload of virgins to play with.

I require empirical evidence, otherwise it's opinion. As Isaac Asimov said, "One can only trust reason. There's no general agreement in faith. Reason has a system of transfer. A system of rational argument following the laws of logic that people agree on. Within reason there are compelling arguments. Certain types of evidence can be argued then agreed upon. With faith there is no compelling evidence. If a person of faith has some revelation, it cannot be transferred from one person to another for questioning or argument."

I do not fear death one bit. I'll be pissed when I think it's coming but only because I want to see rapid progress in all things and I'll miss advancing technology and social change.

I am certain (I don't use believe) that this "god gene" will be found to be absent in M253 or a large percentage of M253 at least as well as other Y-chromosomes. I am confident that genetics will trump nurture in the degree of how humans behave.


Spiritual Beliefs

LeBrok
07-02-14, 23:19
MY EXPERIENCE
I'm finding it extremely interesting that the countries where I-M253 is more prevalent (Scandinavia), they are also less religious, lack a belief in a god especially in Denmark, the location of M253s origin. For an unknown reason, the Czech Republic has virtually no religion or belief in a god. I am M253 and atheist.
By burial practices, decoration and spiritual objects, we can guess that Neanderthals were less religious people than Home Sapience in general. It could be interesting to see if Scandinavians have more Neanderthal DNA left in their genome than other populations. If indeed it is the case we might suppose that low spirituality of Neanderthals was genetically transferred to Modern Scandinavians.



I was adopted at 2 weeks after birth but grew up with siblings that were "blood siblings" with the same mother and father. We were close in age. I was 8 months older than one and 2 years older than the other. Nurturing was exactly the same. We did everything together until near adulthood. I am quite the opposite of them politically, socially, and in the spiritual which is nonsense to me. I found out my genetic heritage in mid-2013. That's just over 40 years of non-belief. I tried to become religious for a girl :grin: but it just seemed silly. I did feel a longing or connection and wished I was Scandinavian in origin as far back as age 10. This may seem "spiritual" to many but that's what I had hoped.
Thanks for sharing. This is a great example how strong genetics is when it comes to traits of character, inclination to certain pleasures or fears, how logic works, etc.
My 3 kids were born almost at same time, and spent most of their life in exactly same environment, like home, school, friends, food, air, etc. From the moment they were born they behaved in different ways, so I tossed the clean slate hypothesis away. I had to convince my psychiatric doctor friend that clean slate was bulshit (obviously some profesors were teaching this still in 90s). Now she has her own kids, and understands better how things work. What blind moron invented this hypothesis anyway, gees. It is easy to believe in it when having a lonely child (nothing to compare against), or parents have very similar personalities and likewise kids.
Anyway my kids have (now at 20s) pretty much same characters and personalities they were born with. They are not as different like people in general, but more like a spectrum between my wife and I. Whatever one would construct mixing our DNA. Similar to parents but different in their own ways from birth.


Believing in a god is emotional weakness in that one is accepting that they are incapable of making decisions and therefore hand rough things off to a deity. Or accomplishments are the work of a deity and one could not have done it on their own. That a deity saved a person or person's from an accident yet spared others (grace). Then there's the fear of death and a rather greedy attempt to keep living even though one has no physical body. Islam is worse in that one gets a crapload of virgins to play with.
Spirituality, especially when proved genetic, is so ancient and so widespread that, by evolutionary standards, it has to exist for a very good reason. Believing in supernatural may seem silly and not needed in modern age, but it exists because it was very beneficial for our ancestors.
For example if somebody was atheist in the past, and had seen wife die during birthing, most kids dead too, suffering for nothing, life full of fleas, lice and worms eating you from inside, and hungry all the time too. Why would you suffer for nothing, with no help from gods to pray to, no reward after life for these painful sacrifices? The only logical option is to jump from the tall rock and finish your misery.
Spiritual people had much better chance to get through misery, hoping and imagining a better future with help of ancestral spirits, believing in their special status, lucky star, and survive.



I do not fear death one bit. I'll be pissed when I think it's coming but only because I want to see rapid progress in all things and I'll miss advancing technology and social change.
I'm the same, any type of progress (for the better) is very exciting. Stagnation and no change is depressing. I can live 1,000 years just to see and experience progress.


I am certain (I don't use believe) that this "god gene" will be found to be absent in M253 or a large percentage of M253 at least as well as other Y-chromosomes. I am confident that genetics will trump nurture in the degree of how humans behave.
I would be surprised if "god gene" could be found on any of sex chromosomes. There might be a geographical correlation between God Gene and M253, but no causation.

Aberdeen
08-02-14, 01:46
I have to question some of the assumptions being made here. For example, archeologists have found Neanderthal graves that contain tools, animal bones, ochre and the remains of flowers, which suggests that Neanderthals did believe in some kind of afterlife. I realize that some archeologists still question whether the grave finds are meaningful, but their argument for discounting the evidence seems to be rather circular - they assume that Neanderthals couldn't have practiced meaningful burial because they assume that Neanderthals must have been primitive brutes who wouldn't have practiced meaningful burial. The evidence does seem to support the idea that Neanderthals had some sort of belief in an afterlife, although we have no way of knowing whether they believed in the kind of gods that many modern humans do.

If you do a bit of reading about Scandinavian history, you'll find that the Scandinavians were traditionally very religious, both as Pagans and later as christians. It was only in the last half of the 20th century that most people in Norway, Denmark and Sweden lost interest in religion, and in fact the Lutheran Church is still quite powerful politically in those countries. The withering away of formal religious belief seems to have more to do with the sense of living a secure life in a social democracy than anything to do with genetics. Economic and social security seem to dull one's sense of need for the religious life. If you don't fear harm from an angry god, you probably won't pray as often.

LeBrok
08-02-14, 02:29
Good points.


I have to question some of the assumptions being made here. For example, archeologists have found Neanderthal graves that contain tools, animal bones, ochre and the remains of flowers, which suggests that Neanderthals did believe in some kind of afterlife. I realize that some archeologists still question whether the grave finds are meaningful, but their argument for discounting the evidence seems to be rather circular - they assume that Neanderthals couldn't have practiced meaningful burial because they assume that Neanderthals must have been primitive brutes who wouldn't have practiced meaningful burial. The evidence does seem to support the idea that Neanderthals had some sort of belief in an afterlife, although we have no way of knowing whether they believed in the kind of gods that many modern humans do.
I think N were spiritual beings, just not as much as HS. According to recent hypothesis, HS advantage lied in being more social, culturally active, and I believe, more spiritual too.



If you do a bit of reading about Scandinavian history, you'll find that the Scandinavians were traditionally very religious, both as Pagans and later as christians. It was only in the last half of the 20th century that most people in Norway, Denmark and Sweden lost interest in religion, and in fact the Lutheran Church is still quite powerful politically in those countries. The withering away of formal religious belief seems to have more to do with the sense of living a secure life in a social democracy than anything to do with genetics. Economic and social security seem to dull one's sense of need for the religious life. If you don't fear harm from an angry god, you probably won't pray as often.
It might be the case that Scandinavians are spiritual but not participating in organized religions, after all 75% still marry in churches. The difference between North and South might stem from one group being more socially tolerant or less emotionally engaged in religion, giving impression of lesser spirituality.

Interesting example is Russia, where after 80 years of indoctrinated atheism 75% people declares believing in supernatural today. On par with some other countries where atheism was never taught in schools, churches burned, clergy prosecuted, etc.
I don't see any other explanation than spirituality having strong genetic base.
Spirituality is not an idea or a mem, it is a feeling.

Aberdeen
08-02-14, 03:39
I don't know if scientists will ever find the "god gene" that some of them talk about, but there does seem to be something in our DNA that makes us feel the need for spiritual experience. But I think there's a big social component in the difference we currently see between northern and southern Europe in terms of whether or not they still embrace traditional religion, in that the more secure we feel socially and materially, the less need we feel for supernatural assistance. If I was an unemployed person living in Greece or Spain right now, I'd probably be praying for some supernatural being to come rescue me, because there probably wouldn't seem to be any other source of help. And the average Russian probably wants to find a god or a magic genie to help them out right now.

FBS
09-02-14, 14:31
We will know more when we reach the level where we will be able to understand quantum and entanglement. This is an interesting read: http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/01/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-inside-brain-neurons-supports-controversial-theory-of-consciousness.php

LeBrok
09-02-14, 20:31
I don't know if scientists will ever find the "god gene" that some of them talk about, but there does seem to be something in our DNA that makes us feel the need for spiritual experience.
If there was one gene all people would have exactly same spirituality, or complete lack of one. Sort of one gene involvement in rare human conditions. If you don't have this one special gene you never going to get it regardless of environmental factors. In case of spirituality I'm expecting conglomeration of few factoring, complementing, contributing genes. Spirituality might manifest itself as predispositions to be awe and amazed by something unusual; fear/hair standing reaction by something unexpected and unexplainable; ability to feel presence of third party (spirits, "out of body feelings");extrapolation of human traits, feelings, and character on non human entities; extrapolation of human control of environment (tools) on natural phenomena (who controls thunder, sun rain?), good vivid imagination, desire to explain things; bad estimating/probability calculation skills (all things have same chance of happening); or even involvement of some enabling genes like strong trust (blindly believing parents and authority figures), or strong mimicking desire (follow the group), how strongly certain emotions are felt. The bigger amount of these complementing genes the stronger the spirituality. Similar to number of genes one needs for whitest skin colour, for example.

Aberdeen
09-02-14, 20:42
I suppose that would explain why there's such a difference in what different people think of as spirituality. Some people think of spirituality as meditation and floating off into positive thoughts in order to unite with a kindly universe, while others think of spirituality in terms of an angry sky god who's going to punish most people, so they want to be one of the "good kids" who don't get beaten by their angry god. I can see a lot of that being rooted in childhood experiences, except that what people have experienced doesn't in fact always seem to determine those different attitudes. So it makes sense that there are probably a multiplicity of genes involved in spirituality, and some people have some gene mutations and not others, and some people have certain genetic switches activated by life experiences while other people have the same genetic switches but they aren't activated because of different life experiences. That kind of gene difference and gene activation/non-activation might explain some of these differences. As with many other things, genetics probably have a great deal to do with it but life experience helps shape what role those genes have in our lives.

LeBrok
09-02-14, 21:50
We will know more when we reach the level the we will be able to understand quantum and entanglement. This is an interseting read: http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/01/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-inside-brain-neurons-supports-controversial-theory-of-consciousness.php
I find it possible that our nervous system uses "weird" quantum phenomena. However I doubt that it links us to some cosmic conscience. At our state of knowledge logic is easily explainable based on our artificial intelligence progress in computing, best examples are Deep Blue and Watson beating best people in chess and Jeopardy games. We have much harder times explaining emotions though. Well, we know that they are essential at guiding us, and any creature with neuronal network, through life. We still don't know how it is that we feel something at all, what makes emotions to manifest themselves in a form of feelings/sensation. The sense of touch would be easier to explain, but how you explain pleasure or pain?. It would be impossible to even explain emotions to entities without feelings, like artificial intelligence. Either you feel them therefore you can understand/imagine them, or you don't have them and you'll never get it.
Concept of emotions is so murky for science right now that we can't even create hypothesis how to design an electronic circuit to give machnes any sensation, not mentioning pleasure or pain. Perhaps it is a good thing, last thing we need is to hurt computer's feelings, or even worse, robots demanding equality with men. Without feelings machines don't care and never will, therefore they always will be perfect slaves.

LeBrok
09-02-14, 22:11
Some people think of spirituality as meditation and floating off into positive thoughts in order to unite with a kindly universe, Yep, according to recent knowledge we all have body map in our brain. Whatever happened to us is immediately transposed to this body map, and obviously connected to feeling self. I can imagine instances when this map and feeling self could be manipulated or maybe broken with brain injuries. For example out of body floating experience manifests itself when your body map is shut down with oxygen deprivation during accidents, electric stimulation of brain, or during meditation. Likewise we have a special map of outside world in our brain, working in relation with self map. Therefore for some people might be possible (genetic predisposition) to feel some emotions outside their body map/the self, in outside world spacial sector in brain. This might be felt as presence of spirits or gods outside our bodies. If somehow feeling of love moves out of "self map", it might give sensation of loving god watching you, or that you love the whole world.

We can only imagine how difficult it is to convince such person not to believe in supernatural. Logical arguments are not much against feeling of god's presence.



As with many other things, genetics probably have a great deal to do with it but life experience helps shape what role those genes have in our lives. I'm somewhat spiritual person and former believer. In my case my logic analyzing my life experiences and acquired knowledge has lead me to conclusion that the world as we know it can exist and operate without help of supernatural. Other words, my logic don't let me believe, though I certainly could.

Angela
10-02-14, 00:38
Likewise we have a special map of outside world in our brain, working in relation with self map. Therefore for some people might be possible (genetic predisposition) to feel some emotions outside their body map/the self, in outside world spacial sector in brain. This might be felt as presence of spirits or gods outside our bodies. If this is feeling of love, it might give sensation of loving god watching you.

We can only imagine how difficult it is to convince such person not to believe in supernatural. Logical arguments are not much against feeling of god's presence.



Most of the world's great religions, other perhaps than the ones like Confucianism, which are really just law codes, include a mystical dimension...for example, you have the Sufis in Islam, the adherents of Kabala in Judaism, and, of course, Christian mystical tradition. The response of atheists is that these people are either mad or deluded. On the other hand, what's always struck me is that no matter how far removed in space and time the cultures may be, the experience sounds fundamentally the same, and many of these people give no indication that they're mad. And no, I don't think you could convince them that what they're experiencing isn't real. The problem is that while words may describe it, they can't communicate what it's really like. I imagine it's sort of like trying to describe color to a person who only sees in black and white.

Other people come to God by a different route. At university, Viktor Frankel's book The Will to Meaning was assigned reading for a course I was taking...only 100 pages, but it made a tremendous impression on me. He formed the central ideas of his philosophy out of his experience in a concentration camp. This is a short clip where he explains how a belief in God fits into his philosophy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1KYnd5X0I

Aberdeen
10-02-14, 12:43
When I listen to what Victor Frankel has to say about religion, what I hear is "we can decide to embrace religion in order to feel that our life has meaning", which doesn't sound to me as if he's trying to argue that there's any evidence of a higher power. Although I suppose one could interpret his comments as meaning "we're placed here in order to find meaning", although that viewpoint isn't what I'd call evidence of anything.

I've always considered myself to be a Pagan, in that I've worshipped and had meaningful spiritual experiences certain forces of the natural world that I considered to be conscious and aware. For example, I was quite persuaded by the so-called Gaia Hypothesis, which attempts to provide a scientific basis for arguing that the Earth is a conscious and aware entity. However, my beliefs were based mainly on my spiritual experiences, and I've come to accept that there are scientific explanations for what I've experienced, so it could simply be my own consciousness providing me with experiences that seem meaningful because of some evolutionary advantage in believing in some kind of "higher power". And I've never really worried too much about whether the universe was created by some sort of god, because that would require me to wonder who or what created that god. Worrying about that issue too much makes me feel like a dog chasing its tail. So if I was going to go with a belief system about the origins of the universe, I'd rather believe that the universe always existed and needs no creator, rather than believing that some god made the world and that god has always existed and needs no creator. If I believe in an eternal universe rather than an eternal god, I at least have the advantage of believing in something that actually exists. However, I think the correct answer to that ultimate puzzle is "I don't know'." That may be the only answer that's authentic for us humans, IMO.

LeBrok
11-02-14, 20:44
When I listen to what Victor Frankel has to say about religion, what I hear is "we can decide to embrace religion in order to feel that our life has meaning", which doesn't sound to me as if he's trying to argue that there's any evidence of a higher power. Although I suppose one could interpret his comments as meaning "we're placed here in order to find meaning", although that viewpoint isn't what I'd call evidence of anything.
Yep, it might be this short video, but it comes across more as psychology (finding purpose to feel better, fulfill one's needs) than any kind of religion. However it is part of human spirituality. From our egocentric, human-centric (feeling special), point of view we automatically try to find a purpose of life. Otherwise we are not better than pinguins or ladybugs whose only goals in life are: eat, survive, multiply. Our lives wouldn't be worth much, would they? Perhaps, it is some sort of self-defence mechanism.



I've always considered myself to be a Pagan, in that I've worshipped and had meaningful spiritual experiences certain forces of the natural world that I considered to be conscious and aware. For example, I was quite persuaded by the so-called Gaia Hypothesis, which attempts to provide a scientific basis for arguing that the Earth is a conscious and aware entity. However, my beliefs were based mainly on my spiritual experiences, and I've come to accept that there are scientific explanations for what I've experienced, so it could simply be my own consciousness providing me with experiences that seem meaningful because of some evolutionary advantage in believing in some kind of "higher power". And I've never really worried too much about whether the universe was created by some sort of god, because that would require me to wonder who or what created that god. Worrying about that issue too much makes me feel like a dog chasing its tail. So if I was going to go with a belief system about the origins of the universe, I'd rather believe that the universe always existed and needs no creator, rather than believing that some god made the world and that god has always existed and needs no creator. If I believe in an eternal universe rather than an eternal god, I at least have the advantage of believing in something that actually exists. However, I think the correct answer to that ultimate puzzle is "I don't know'." That may be the only answer that's authentic for us humans, IMO.
Thanks for sharing.


However, I think the correct answer to that ultimate puzzle is "I don't know'." That may be the only answer that's authentic for us humans, IMO
With time I grew to enjoy movies of undefined endings (did he survived or not?) as long as the point is already made. I also like to think in probabilities of an outcomes, the spectrum rather than in black and white. I'm not sure if it could be called "authentic for us humans" but it gives certainly an interesting perspective, understanding and tolerance.

Angela
11-02-14, 22:18
Viktor Frankel was a psychiatrist and analyst, so he is approaching religion from that perspective. In the way that Freud tried to explain human behavior as a search for pleasure, and Adler as a search for power, Frankel says that human behavior can be explained as a search for meaning. Religion can then be understood as a search for ultimate meaning.

I personally don't think you can explain all human behavior as stemming from one overwhelming drive; rather, I think it stems from a combination of them, probably in different proportions in different people.

What I think is relevant to this particular thread is that some people do indeed strive to find meaning in their lives, and when that meaning is gone, they don't thrive either psychologically or physically. In Frankel's case, he was forced to the absolute brink physically and mentally. The only thing that gave him the strength to survive was the memory of his wife and the love he had for her. I think we can see the operation of the same principle in far less extreme situations, as when a long married man loses his wife and within a short time, himself dies. Or, conversely, people who outlive the most optimistic outcomes for their diseases because they need to care for a dependent child. Also, people who have defined themselves in terms of work often don't thrive in retirement.

As Frankel said, however, for the "religious personality", a personality, as we have been discussing, perhaps formed as much by genetics as by life experience, work and love don't provide enough meaning. For some of these people, perhaps it is part of their need for philosophical answers to the riddle of existence, but perhaps for others it is because they are able to sense something beyond the veil...something other than "actuality".

All of the great religions, other than perhaps Confucianism, include what could be called a "mystical" dimension...the Sufis of Islam, the Kabbalists of Judaism, and, of course, the Christian mystical tradition, among others. Different paths, but the experience has always struck me, as described, as remarkably similar.

This is an example of a poem I like that is written out of a mystical experience in the Christian context...

Gerald Manley Hopkins
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;

It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?

Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;

And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell:
The soil is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;

And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —

Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

C-in-fl-usa
12-02-14, 22:29
By burial practices, decoration and spiritual objects, we can guess that Neanderthals were less religious people than Home Sapience in general. It could be interesting to see if Scandinavians have more Neanderthal DNA left in their genome than other populations. If indeed it is the case we might suppose that low spirituality of Neanderthals was genetically transferred to Modern Scandinavians.
First, thank you. This will make for a good discussion. My Neanderthal DNA measures 1.5% and Denisovan at 0.4% - At some point I think they will be able to get very close to deciding the degree of spirituality in these people.


Spirituality, especially when proved genetic, is so ancient and so widespread that, by evolutionary standards, it has to exist for a very good reason. Believing in supernatural may seem silly and not needed in modern age, but it exists because it was very beneficial for our ancestors.

A good point on widespread spirituality via genetic transfer. Widespread is an interesting word to associate with religion and genetics. M253 sat in isolation and basically undisturbed for 5000 years. One might ask what happens to a group that is undisturbed for that long? What takes place genetically? What deities were worshiped prior to the Norse gods we are familiar with? I read that they were "earth mother" worshipers. With religion, is there always a penalty for not obeying, and if so, what would someone's fate then be? Did this "earth mother" have a dark place for you to go when dead?


For example if somebody was atheist in the past, and had seen wife die during birthing, most kids dead too, suffering for nothing, life full of fleas, lice and worms eating you from inside, and hungry all the time too. Why would you suffer for nothing, with no help from gods to pray to, no reward after life for these painful sacrifices? The only logical option is to jump from the tall rock and finish your misery. Spiritual people had much better chance to get through misery, hoping and imagining a better future with help of ancestral spirits, believing in their special status, lucky star, and survive.
I would ask will this individual be very likely to commit suicide or not? I went through a very similar experience in 2008 (without fleas, lice, etc). My option was to find a new direction to move in. Of course the individual in your example was in the distant past and without the options, staples, and luxuries of today.


I would be surprised if "god gene" could be found on any of sex chromosomes. There might be a geographical correlation between God Gene and M253, but no causation.
Now, I'm way out of my field of expertise (geographic sciences), but I'll try to decrypt some human biology that I have read. You probably already knew that a scientist at the National Cancer Institute, geneticist Dean Hamer, has identified a protein (VMAT2) that is encoded by the gene SLC18A2. He has designated this as the "god gene." This particular protein transports "neurotransmitters of "feel good" substances (for lack of a better word) dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, phenylalanine, tyrosine, tryptophan, and histamine. Some are well known in non-academic circles such as trypotophan, which is associated with eating turkey in the U.S. during Thanksgiving. Of course when dealing with an intangible such as faith in humans, one can only speculate as closely as possible as to the origin of the thoughts on a god. Anyway, Dr. Hamer states that spirituality can be quantified. I cannot agree or disagree, being out of my league here.

So what happens with spiritual persons in a spiritual overdose? They get a rush of the above substances, the warm fuzzies, an overwhelming sense of feeling good. Those in the more conservative ranks of religion head for restaurants after their buzz at church. There they will eat the "comfort foods"... those high in fats and proteins containing the aforementioned substances.

C-in-fl-usa
13-02-14, 00:34
If you do a bit of reading about Scandinavian history, you'll find that the Scandinavians were traditionally very religious, both as Pagans and later as christians. It was only in the last half of the 20th century that most people in Norway, Denmark and Sweden lost interest in religion, and in fact the Lutheran Church is still quite powerful politically in those countries. The withering away of formal religious belief seems to have more to do with the sense of living a secure life in a social democracy than anything to do with genetics. Economic and social security seem to dull one's sense of need for the religious life. If you don't fear harm from an angry god, you probably won't pray as often.
I'm unsure how you measure or qualify "very religious." They had several gods for a variety of reasons and explanations. To me, the more gods they had made their spirituality quite different and less overwhelming than the god of Judaism and Christianity. To have one demanding and vengeful god, one that is constantly threatening and judging a person, would be more intense and frightening. The Norse deities were associates and assistants in battle, gods that brought sunshine and darkness, Earth, seasons, feelings, age, happiness, and many more things.

Just one god, "Hel"... who controlled a netherworld called "Hel" (where the English Hell originates)... a place for dishonorable and lying Norse. This place had the deceased, dragons, two races, maids, undead friends of the deceased, gods that lived in Hel and had functions in the world above. There were also more peaceful places within Hel and one could die there and go to another place. Just from its description is a better place by far than the Judeo-Christian Hell. Seems more like a carnival house of horror or penalty box.


The withering away of formal religious belief seems to have more to do with the sense of living a secure life in a social democracy than anything to do with genetics. Economic and social security seem to dull one's sense of need for the religious life. If you don't fear harm from an angry god, you probably won't pray as often.
Interesting and compelling. The Lutheran Church in Denmark is state-sponsored so "quite powerful" is an unusual thing to then measure. Sweden's Lutheran Church was state-sponsored until 2000. It seems that while many get Christened, it's just some social formality. Not even 20% in Sweden believe there is a god. Roughly 35% say there is no god. The rest believe there is some life force. The same applies for Denmark. Possibly, just possibly education is the reason for the decline in religion. These countries are near the top in education. This seems to be true of Japan and S. Korea also. It's all quite interesting.

LeBrok
13-02-14, 03:03
First, thank you. This will make for a good discussion. My Neanderthal DNA measures 1.5% and Denisovan at 0.4% - At some point I think they will be able to get very close to deciding the degree of spirituality in these people.
2.9% of Neanderthal for me. The interesting part is that our Neanderthal genes might not even overlap. New research just came out:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/
I have to admit that this sort of observation about lower Neanderthal spirituality is shot almost in the dark. There might be other factors in place (from my post above)

It might be the case that Scandinavians are spiritual but not participating in organized religions, after all 75% still marry in churches. The difference between North and South might stem from one group being more socially tolerant or less emotionally engaged in religion, giving impression of lesser spirituality

If there was one gene all people would have exactly same spirituality, or complete lack of one. Sort of one gene involvement in rare human conditions. If you don't have this one special gene you never going to get it regardless of environmental factors. In case of spirituality I'm expecting conglomeration of few factoring, complementing, contributing genes. Spirituality might manifest itself as predispositions to be awe and amazed by something unusual; fear/hair standing reaction by something unexpected and unexplainable; ability to feel presence of third party (spirits, "out of body feelings");extrapolation of human traits, feelings, and character on non human entities; extrapolation of human control of environment (tools) on natural phenomena (who controls thunder, sun rain?), good vivid imagination, desire to explain things; bad estimating/probability calculation skills (all things have same chance of happening); or even involvement of some enabling genes like strong trust (blindly believing parents and authority figures), or strong mimicking desire (follow the group), how strongly certain emotions are felt. The bigger amount of these complementing genes the stronger the spirituality. Similar to number of genes one needs for whitest skin colour, for example.



I would ask will this individual be very likely to commit suicide or not? I went through a very similar experience in 2008 (without fleas, lice, etc). My option was to find a new direction to move in. Of course the individual in your example was in the distant past and without the options, staples, and luxuries of today.
The widespread spirituality is the sign of natural selection in action. The atheists were "weeded out" during 2 million years of rise of human consciousness. And maybe it is why Neanderthals are extinct.



Now, I'm way out of my field of expertise (geographic sciences), but I'll try to decrypt some human biology that I have read. You probably already knew that a scientist at the National Cancer Institute, geneticist Dean Hamer, has identified a protein (VMAT2) that is encoded by the gene SLC18A2. He has designated this as the "god gene." This particular protein transports "neurotransmitters of "feel good" substances (for lack of a better word) dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, phenylalanine, tyrosine, tryptophan, and histamine. No, I didn't know that. It would be interesting to know if this gene is expressed in whole brain or only in a sector connected to spirituality?


So what happens with spiritual persons in a spiritual overdose? They get a rush of the above substances, the warm fuzzies, an overwhelming sense of feeling good. Those in the more conservative ranks of religion head for restaurants after their buzz at church. There they will eat the "comfort foods"... those high in fats and proteins containing the aforementioned substances.
Spiritual puking? :))
Who knows we might recognize syndrome of spiritual addiction soon. Person who goes to church twice a day, or prays 5 times a day, or sacrificing best warriors for the rain? The last one might do something with Aztec Empire collapse done with few spanish mercenaries.

LeBrok
13-02-14, 03:56
Viktor Frankel was a psychiatrist and analyst, so he is approaching religion from that perspective. In the way that Freud tried to explain human behavior as a search for pleasure, and Adler as a search for power, Frankel says that human behavior can be explained as a search for meaning.
I find it all upside down. The human existence with connection to all life on earth, earth's environment, explains human behavior, with our feelings guiding us to make best choices. Usually the right choices our ancestors made.
I have an interesting example/observation:
2 million years (or more) as hunter-gatherers, and equal food sharing among the group tradition, can explain our strong dislike of inequality, with interesting aversion to income inequality in recent times. We still want to share equally, even though the poorest these days ( in developed countries) are much better off than ordinary people 200 years ago, not mentioning hunter-gatherers way back. Even though the poorest today don't even need to chip in (paying income tax) they still want to share the spoils equally. Amazing phenomenon, and if I'm right, we should find equality gene controlling certain emotions soon.

And if I'm to ridiculous with this example we can always fall back on better defined basic feelings: hunger, sex, love, compassion, etc, etc in control of our destiny.


Religion can then be understood as a search for ultimate meaning. I would agree if all of us could find same meaning or same god. Logically it would mean that we are on good track of understanding. I can understand it better thinking about religion being a survival force. This way with exactly same meaning for every spiritual person, it helps them survive/live, regardless of your spiritual format/religion. And if it does that regardless of format it validates itself as a positive force. Kids have wonderful, powerful, and happy experience during Christmas regardless if Santa is real or not. This almost spiritual experience is what counts the most, not the Santa.


What I think is relevant to this particular thread is that some people do indeed strive to find meaning in their lives, and when that meaning is gone, they don't thrive either psychologically or physically. Yes, the human "spirit" needs to be lit and nourished.



As Frankel said, however, for the "religious personality", a personality, as we have been discussing, perhaps formed as much by genetics as by life experience, work and love don't provide enough meaning. For some of these people, perhaps it is part of their need for philosophical answers to the riddle of existence, but perhaps for others it is because they are able to sense something beyond the veil...something other than "actuality".
You can pull me on your side once you can identify the sense (in human body) for sensing supernatural. So far we can only wonder why God hid it so well.


All of the great religions, other than perhaps Confucianism, include what could be called a "mystical" dimension...the Sufis of Islam, the Kabbalists of Judaism, and, of course, the Christian mystical tradition, among others. Different paths, but the experience has always struck me, as described, as remarkably similar. As you know we are almost identical people with almost identical DNA. Why should we think, feel or experience the world in much different way?

Aberdeen
13-02-14, 05:27
..........
The Lutheran Church in Denmark is state-sponsored so "quite powerful" is an unusual thing to then measure. Sweden's Lutheran Church was state-sponsored until 2000. It seems that while many get Christened, it's just some social formality. Not even 20% in Sweden believe there is a god. Roughly 35% say there is no god. The rest believe there is some life force. The same applies for Denmark. Possibly, just possibly education is the reason for the decline in religion. These countries are near the top in education. This seems to be true of Japan and S. Korea also. It's all quite interesting.

All of those countries are to some extent social democracies that have prosperous, well educated populations but also a national health care system, some protection for workers, etc. I think it's interesting to compare people in those countries to people in another rich country with a fairly well educated population, the U.S.A., where people are generally much more religious. And, despite the wealth in the U.S., there's a lot more economic insecurity there compared to these other countries, partly because American employers can fire anyone without giving reasons and partly because in the U.S. people can easily be bankrupted by health problems, especially if they lose their job. So the one thing a person of average means in the U.S. doesn't have compared to a person of average means in these other countries is economic security. Perhaps Americans are so religious because they think they may need divine intervention to avoid bad things happening to them, whereas the average person in those other countries never expects to become homeless even if they lose their job. I think people feel that they need gods to protect them from danger. Some people like religion because they feel it gives their life meaning but those who get angry if you question whether their god exists are those who fear, I think. Just a theory.

Angela
13-02-14, 18:42
[QUOTE]I find it all upside down. The human existence with connection to all life on earth, earth's environment, explains human behavior, with our feelings guiding us to make best choices. Usually the right choices our ancestors made.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean, so I may be off course here, but here it goes...these psychiatrists were all trying to create a therapeutic regime to help people with their neuroses. Freud thought that these neuroses could be explained by some trauma in connection with sexuality. Adler saw an answer in an examination of power relationships. Frankel's model, logotherapy, is based on the principle that a search for meaning is embodied, innate, if you will, in the human psyche, and that a therapeutic regime can be built on helping people to find meaning in their pain and suffering. I always think of his theory when I see parents who have lost children to violence, for example, or adults who were abused as children, who start organizations, or make speeches, or raise money for those who are similarly afflicted. There's a related principle at work in Catholic teaching, which encourages people to embrace their suffering as Christ did, and to view it as penance for the fallen world. These behaviors don't make up for the suffering, or reverse what has happened, but it allows people to make peace with it. Frankel himself isn't making any pronouncements on whether God exists or whether man created him out of his own need. In that interview he was merely responding to a question about how religion would fit into his philosophy of the human psyche.



I have an interesting example/observation:
2 million years (or more) as hunter-gatherers, and equal food sharing among the group tradition, can explain our strong dislike of inequality, with interesting aversion to income inequality in recent times. We still want to share equally, even though the poorest these days ( in developed countries) are much better off than ordinary people 200 years ago, not mentioning hunter-gatherers way back. Even though the poorest today don't even need to chip in (paying income tax) they still want to share the spoils equally. Amazing phenomenon, and if I'm right, we should find equality gene controlling certain emotions soon.

I do agree that in hunter-gatherer bands there seems to be an emphasis on group ownership of resources, and I can see how that would have helped the group to survive. Perhaps agriculture, which allowed for the accumulation of surplus, led to a desire to claim certain things for oneself. Or, perhaps, survival now also depended on encouraging and rewarding innovation, and imagination, and more than ordinary effort.

As for the more modern era, any such schemes, in my opinion, fall prey immediately to the selfishness and laziness which also characterize human behavior. Since we're talking about this in relation to religion, I'm reminded of the experiments of the early Christian church with communal living. It didn't last very long. They soon were attracting layabouts who came for handouts, while others worked to bring in resources. This also brings to mind some witty saying I once heard about the Soviet Union, (which I'm sure wasn't at all funny to the people living under that system) where supposedly people said "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."


And if I'm to ridiculous with this example we can always fall back on better defined basic feelings: hunger, sex, love, compassion, etc, etc in control of our destiny.

Here, I think you're in line with what these psychiatrists were trying to explain. Like you, I don't think one drive explains all human beings. Well, perhaps you could say that human beings try to find meaning through sex, and love, and material possessions that bring pleasure and a sense of power. I think most people in the modern western world could be said to be driven by a desire for money, fame, and the pleasure and sense of power those things bring to them.


I would agree if all of us could find same meaning or same god. Logically it would mean that we are on good track of understanding. I can understand it better thinking about religion being a survival force. This way with exactly same meaning for every spiritual person, it helps them survive/live, regardless of your spiritual format/religion. And if it does that regardless of format it validates itself as a positive force.

Yes, the human "spirit" needs to be lit and nourished.

I think we're in agreement here. The need for meaning may be universal, and it helps people survive, and more than survive, it may help them thrive, and I think this has been the case since we developed a "human" consciousness. Depending on the culture or ethnic group, there are varying degrees of emphasis on an ultimate source of meaning, and even when it is present, it will take different forms. For example, I don't find as much evidence of this need for ultimate meaning even philosophically, or for spirituality or "mysticism" in the East Asian cultures, despite the professed belief at least in the past in Buddhism. On the other hand, the greater Near East has spawned three of the great religions of the world, all of which have a large "spiritual" or "mystical" component if you will. India, or South Asia, if you prefer, is the source of two more, Hinduism and Buddhism. In these latter two religions, the connection of human suffering to religion is even more explicit than in the more western religions. The goal is to be released from the wheel of existence, and the suffering which that entails. (The Buddha's revelations came after he first saw human suffering, from which his parents had previously shielded him.) Judaism is more ambivalent, but Christianity derives its meaning from the resurrection, and that in Christ death is defeated. Existence isn't seen as something from which to be rescued; rather, for those who follow the reasoning of people like Teilhard de Chardin, the Christian is called upon to transform human existence and perhaps nature itself.


You can pull me on your side once you can identify the sense (in human body) for sensing supernatural. So far we can only wonder why God hid it so well.

As you know we are almost identical people with almost identical DNA. Why should we think, feel or experience the world in much different way?

Or why he only revealed it to certain people. And, it's not my side, exactly, it's just a very elementary and cursory explanation of the things I learned in all those years of daily theology classes (my high school theology teacher gave me an appreciation of the Christian existentialists, if nothing else), and then in comparative religion and philosophy at university. I make no claims for myself.

Yes, we are all far more alike than we are different. We are all human. And yet, my husband is totally tone deaf, while my son can hear an extremely complicated piece of classical music and sit down and play it almost mistake free. One never listens to music, and the other finds it an enriching and even essential part of life. It's unfair, but life is unfair. Or take something like the grief process, which all human beings experience. I read a study once where it said that it takes about a year to get over a major loss. If you haven't turned the corner by them you probably never will. For those who feel the immediacy of the grief for years, is it neurosis, or might it be that such people experience more of an "imprint" from other people, or secrete more of certain hormones either while loving or when the loved one is lost? Now, is that a blessing, or a curse? Either way, might the person who can't come to grips with the loss seek help in religious belief?

These are all really big questions, and I have no real answers, but I do think about them, and enjoy discussing them.

LeBrok
16-02-14, 04:29
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, so I may be off course here, but here it goes...these psychiatrists were all trying to create a therapeutic regime to help people with their neuroses. Freud thought that these neuroses could be explained by some trauma in connection with sexuality. Adler saw an answer in an examination of power relationships. Frankel's model, logotherapy, is based on the principle that a search for meaning is embodied, innate, if you will, in the human psyche, and that a therapeutic regime can be built on helping people to find meaning in their pain and suffering. Sorry, in my clumsy way with words, I was making a point of our evolutionary past being responsible of who we are. What we feel or how we feel is a culmination of our ancestors' lives, and what exactly had worked for them was embraced by natural selection and past to new generations. And I mean everything, not only basic feelings of hunger or sexual attraction, but also feelings regarded by many as only human, like love, justice or believing in extra natural.
Many authors, psychologists, philosophers concentrate on the final product missing all history, our past which shaped our species. They start with existing emotions trying to understand why we behave certain way. Adding temporal dimension, the past of our ancestors, can actually explain existence of each emotion, or even its necessity and benefits. I honestly believe that it is essential for fully understanding who we are, and why we do things; even understanding what behaviour is most likely genetic and what is cultural. (Well, some good guessing at the moment, till we have full genetic knowledge one day).
Personally, I'm having as much fun trying to figure out ancestral way of life from our current behaviour and emotions.



As for the more modern era, any such schemes, in my opinion, fall prey immediately to the selfishness and laziness which also characterize human behavior. Since we're talking about this in relation to religion, I'm reminded of the experiments of the early Christian church with communal living. It didn't last very long. They soon were attracting layabouts who came for handouts, while others worked to bring in resources. This also brings to mind some witty saying I once heard about the Soviet Union, (which I'm sure wasn't at all funny to the people living under that system) where supposedly people said "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." Failure of communal systems might be the numbers. What works for a group of 20 might not work for a group of 2,000. In group of 20 everybody knows everyone, all is done together and it doesn't take long to split things evenly, and keep everyone honest. For group of thousands it is impossible to hunt together, gather together, meet together in one place and listen to all speak; the equal splitting will took forever, so won't work, plus many opportunities to cheat and hide things.




Here, I think you're in line with what these psychiatrists were trying to explain. Like you, I don't think one drive explains all human beings. Well, perhaps you could say that human beings try to find meaning through sex, and love, and material possessions that bring pleasure and a sense of power. I think most people in the modern western world could be said to be driven by a desire for money, fame, and the pleasure and sense of power those things bring to them. By upside-down I wasn't trying to say that they are wrong in their conclusions, at least not Frankel, but not addressing deeper causes, which I find essential (personally) for full understanding, knowing The Why. Connecting dots from anthropology and other sciences, I hope my understanding and explanations are more vertical and "organic", though definitely not "sexy", not by any stretch. :)



Yes, we are all far more alike than we are different. We are all human. And yet, my husband is totally tone deaf, while my son can hear an extremely complicated piece of classical music and sit down and play it almost mistake free. One never listens to music, and the other finds it an enriching and even essential part of life. It's unfair, but life is unfair.
I was averaging human traits across the board, meaning that all peoples across the world can play music, dance, believe in supernatural, smell, walk, talk, and describe love in similar terms, etc.
If it comes to individual differences, they come with combination and permutation of parental base plus few mutations. Meaning, we are always a bit different from each other.
I guess overall we are in agreement. :)



Or take something like the grief process, which all human beings experience. I read a study once where it said that it takes about a year to get over a major loss. If you haven't turned the corner by them you probably never will. For those who feel the immediacy of the grief for years, is it neurosis, or might it be that such people experience more of an "imprint" from other people, or secrete more of certain hormones either while loving or when the loved one is lost? Now, is that a blessing, or a curse? Either way, might the person who can't come to grips with the loss seek help in religious belief?I guess it is similar with good memory. It is easy to learn and do any job, but it is much harder to forgive or go over fears, when a person can recall emotions as strong as the day it happened. A blessing or a curse?
It might be the case that with every improvement comes the "curse". A smarter brain is more suicidal. Farming brought plenty of food, also new disease, bad teeth and bigger wars. Cars made travel a joy, but for the price of millions killed and injured on roads every year. Genetic engineering will make us smart, beautiful and healthy, but perhaps also boring, board, and no reason to live too long. Also when population is too similar we might be wipe out by one new pathogen. For that reason nature loves variety within same species. No mater how environment changes, there are always few who will survive.
Nothing comes with only a bright side, only advantages, I guess. As well it might be a biological law.


These are all really big questions, and I have no real answers, but I do think about them, and enjoy discussing them. With every major scientific discovery I find myself musing how much I'm missing in my knowledge, or our knowledge to grasp complexity of life. I find it fascinating and keep digging at it till things start falling in right places of coherent interaction and unity.

Angela
17-02-14, 16:54
[QUOTE=LeBrok;426644]Sorry, in my clumsy way with words, I was making a point of our evolutionary past being responsible of who we are. What we feel or how we feel is a culmination of our ancestors' lives, and what exactly had worked for them was embraced by natural selection and past to new generations. And I mean everything, not only basic feelings of hunger or sexual attraction, but also feelings regarded by many as only human, like love, justice or believing in extra natural.
Many authors, psychologists, philosophers concentrate on the final product missing all history, our past which shaped our species. They start with existing emotions trying to understand why we behave certain way. Adding temporal dimension, the past of our ancestors, can actually explain existence of each emotion, or even its necessity and benefits. I honestly believe that it is essential for fully understanding who we are, and why we do things; even understanding what behaviour is most likely genetic and what is cultural. (Well, some good guessing at the moment, till we have full genetic knowledge one day).


I agree that many behaviors, feelings, beliefs, provide an evolutionary advantage. I suppose I just have a tendency to resist seeing these things as so biologically determined...so "mechanically" induced. Probably a result of early teachings that they are innate, and have an objective existence.



I guess it is similar with good memory. It is easy to learn and do any job, but it is much harder to forgive or go over fears, when a person can recall emotions as strong as the day it happened. A blessing or a curse?
It might be the case that with every improvement comes the "curse". A smarter brain is more suicidal.


Yes, exactly. The unexamined life may not be worth living, to use a hackneyed quote, but too much examination can lead to depression. And yes also about the benefits of a bad memory. Would that I had one. :)



Genetic engineering will make us smart, beautiful and healthy, but perhaps also boring, board, and no reason to live too long. Also when population is too similar we might be wipe out by one new pathogen. For that reason nature loves variety within same species. No mater how environment changes, there are always few who will survive.

You've just articulated some of my issues with genetic engineering. Are you by any chance a reader of science fiction? I love the original "Dune" series by Frank Herbert. I found it quite prescient...and many of the later books in the series have to do with exactly this topic...the need for variation, the "wild card" mutations that help us survive.

Oh, and I don't find your posts clumsy at all.

LeBrok
28-02-14, 01:36
Small sector in a brain has been located, at which electric stimulation can shut consciousness, and induce tranquil easy feelings for a month. However interesting it produces more questions than answers. Great read anyway.
Maybe this is where "Guardian Angel" is located?

He reported experiencing no rumination and no negative thought for almost a month after the surgery. He described himself in a kind of contemplative state, with a subjective feeling of absolute happiness and timelessness
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/02/23/disconnecting-consciousness-external-environment/

Aberdeen
28-02-14, 02:11
Reaching a higher spiritual state through brain surgery? And interesting possibility.

LeBrok
21-04-15, 07:28
Here is something enlightening.
How John Frum (from) started a new religion, in Papua New Guinea, where raising American flag is a religious custom.
Time 49:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyboIhIyK10&list=PLPxMFXcFRU8WjTWrNxvnfxCLWtCVnBibh&index=2

kyrani99
10-11-15, 06:28
Why do we believe?

I would conclude that state of believing and trusting is the primal and principal state of our mind. The ability we are born with to experience and learn about the world in fastest possible way.
The state of doubt and disbelief is the secondary, “unnatural” and learned state of our mind.


I don't agree with the idea that belief is simply that it is a state of mind.
A lot of people eg Richard Dawkins, say that belief is without evidence but if you try to believe something that you don't accept as true or existing then you find you can't believe it. The evidence may be second hand, eg someone you trust tells you. A child may believe something a parent has told them is true or a student at school or university may believe something that their teachers has said is true or exists. If we are to accept something as true we usually look for evidence and we may use emotion as a way of assessing the evidence. So we may talk about something "feels right". For emotion to be involved the body's state is also a factor. And this is also true in disbelief or doubt. It may be we can't find evidence but we also might say "it doesn't feel right". Again the body is involved.

So we could say that we believe when we have some evidence and that evidence is measured up against an emotional response.

kyrani99
10-11-15, 06:40
Reaching a higher spiritual state through brain surgery? And interesting possibility.

It may be the precursor to enlightenment only. Just before an enlightenment experience the sense of personal self is extinguished and that brings a profound sense of peace. Personal self can be defined as an identification with the mind's activity (ideas and perceptions) and the corresponding bodily reactivity (mainly emotions) so it is a source therefore of both joy and suffering. Maybe in this guys brain there is some relevant "wiring" that has to do with his /her personal self. It would also be one explanation why repeated attempts caused fear. From a personal self point of view the extinguishing may be frightening.

LeBrok
10-11-15, 07:21
I don't agree with the idea that belief is simply that it is a state of mind.
A lot of people eg Richard Dawkins, say that belief is without evidence but if you try to believe something that you don't accept as true or existing then you find you can't believe it.
I'm not sure if it contradicts that trust and belief is a genetic predisposition, natural state of mind. Why do kids blindly believe and fallow parents? On what grounds you believed you parents telling you about Santa Clause? How shocked were you when it turned not to be true?
However I might take back the statement that doubt is only taught and unnatural. It comes rather easy for humans to develop it, so there must be some genetic predisposition for this too.


The evidence may be second hand, eg someone you trust tells you. A child may believe something a parent has told them is true or a student at school or university may believe something that their teachers has said is true or exists. If we are to accept something as true we usually look for evidence and we may use emotion as a way of assessing the evidence. Emotion is not much of evidence. It is just a feeling which can influence believing or not. This is the base for believing though. I think with time, when we learn how deceiving people can be or purely wrong, we are trying to find something more to confirm or decision to believe or not.
How many of us can understand the theory of relativity? Not many, most of us has to take it as a belief only, helped by many independent scientists confirming it experimentally. Yes, time slows down with speed. Satellites using this correction can give us more precise GPS coordinates. Yes, gravity bends light, and confirmed by astronomical observations. Yes, E=MC2 confirmed in atom accelerators and nukes. It is hard not to believe it in face of so many confirmations. This belief in theory of relativity is helped by logic a lot.


So we may talk about something "feels right". For emotion to be involved the body's state is also a factor. And this is also true in disbelief or doubt. It may be we can't find evidence but we also might say "it doesn't feel right". Again the body is involved. Yes, I would say our mind (body) is always involved in process of believing, by feeling and by logic.


So we could say that we believe when we have some evidence and that evidence is measured up against an emotional response. Yes, but mostly as logical adults. Otherwise, when we were children, what evidence we needed to believe in Santa? What evidence we needed to believe in god our parents believed and taught us about? In young age believing is blind and automatic.

kyrani99
10-11-15, 08:26
I'm not sure if it contradicts that trust and belief is a genetic predisposition, natural state of mind. Why do kids blindly believe and fallow parents? On what grounds you believed you parents telling you about Santa Clause? How shocked were you when it turned not to be true?
However I might take back the statement that doubt is only taught and unnatural. It comes rather easy for humans to develop it, so there must be some genetic predisposition for this too...............................
Yes, but mostly as logical adults. Otherwise, when we were children, what evidence we needed to believe in Santa? What evidence we needed to believe in god our parents believed and taught us about? In young age believing is blind and automatic.

You make an interesting point. I held a lot of what my parent said as suspect where as my sisters tended to accept them at their word. I had a poor relationship with my parents whereas they had a good relationship with them. So I didn't trust their word because I held them at a distance. They were hostile towards me.

From the evidence I see we can't really attribute any of it to genetics. Genes are really only a parts l list/ blueprint. Cells will modify genes to suit. For example if there is hyperglycemia then the cells will modify some of their insulin receptors to help keep the excess glucose out. So even behavior at the cellular level must involve a lot more than genes.


Emotion is not much of evidence. It is just a feeling which can influence believing or not. This is the base for believing though. I think with time, when we learn how deceiving people can be or purely wrong, we are trying to find something more to confirm or decision to believe or not.
How many of us can understand the theory of relativity? Not many, most of us has to take it as a belief only, helped by many independent scientists confirming it experimentally. Yes, time slows down with speed. Satellites using this correction can give us more precise GPS coordinates. Yes, gravity bends light, and confirmed by astronomical observations. Yes, E=MC2 confirmed in atom accelerators and nukes. It is hard not to believe it in face of so many confirmations. This belief in theory of relativity is helped by logic a lot.

You might be interested in a short 3-4 min video interviewing Dr Damasio, you can find it if you google Damasio on youtube and emotion and reason. I can't post a link yet. He is a neuroscientist that has specialized on emotions. He says that emotions are critical in assessing reason and thus the decision making process.

As a lay person I would have believed relativity and gravity etc. But as a scientist I am always aware that these are based on observation and reason and both of them are subject to change. A scientific theory is defined by it being falsifiable. I have seen some youtube videos arguing for a flat disc shaped earth and moon. It has challenged my belief based on what I was taught at university. It has made me suspend my belief until I get more evidence.




Yes, I would say our mind (body) is always involved in process of believing, by feeling and by logic.
Do you see mind as the brain or the brain's activity? I see mind as a non-physical reality that is intimately one with the physical. So an idea is completely immaterial whereas a sub-atomic particle, which continually pops into and out of existence, has some physical nature. Of course physicists get around this by saying that nothingness is physical, LOL.

LeBrok
11-11-15, 05:23
You make an interesting point. I held a lot of what my parent said as suspect where as my sisters tended to accept them at their word. I had a poor relationship with my parents whereas they had a good relationship with them. So I didn't trust their word because I held them at a distance. They were hostile towards me. That's terrible. Anyway I was describing a trust in your parents in very early age, let's say from birth to age of 5. I would have hard time to believe that they gave you hard time at this young age.


From the evidence I see we can't really attribute any of it to genetics. Genes are really only a parts l list/ blueprint. Cells will modify genes to suit. For example if there is hyperglycemia then the cells will modify some of their insulin receptors to help keep the excess glucose out. So even behavior at the cellular level must involve a lot more than genes. Sometimes genes are expressed or shut down by way of epigenetics, environmental factor. Although it happens it is not a very active phenomenon, like overwriting all genes at will, sort to speak. By way of genetics we all have two hands, legs, head, eyes, brain, etc. By way of genetics our brain architecture is done basically same way. There is a compartment for vision, hearing, logical thinking, etc, and in same place in brain in all of us. There is also a compartment for feeling feer, the amygdala. It is interesting to know that there are clinical cases of people who lost amygdala or nerve connection to amygdala. With amygdala they also lost feeling of fear.
http://www.wired.com/2010/12/fear-brain-amygdala.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100208154645.htm
By these examples of patients there is a prove that fear is located in our brain, and released to feel it upon certain stimuli, like seeing snakes, spiders, angry person with a knife, a scary movie, etc.


You might be interested in a short 3-4 min video interviewing Dr Damasio, you can find it if you google Damasio on youtube and emotion and reason. I can't post a link yet. He is a neuroscientist that has specialized on emotions. He says that emotions are critical in assessing reason and thus the decision making process. I agree, emotions are primary decision making tool.


As a lay person I would have believed relativity and gravity etc. But as a scientist I am always aware that these are based on observation and reason and both of them are subject to change. A scientific theory is defined by it being falsifiable. I have seen some youtube videos arguing for a flat disc shaped earth and moon. It has challenged my belief based on what I was taught at university. It has made me suspend my belief until I get more evidence. Did I get you right? You believe more in untested hypothesis by way of YouTube video than theory of relativity which is being used in our GPS system, not mentioning positively tested by many independent scientists?



Do you see mind as the brain or the brain's activity? I see mind as a non-physical reality that is intimately one with the physical. So an idea is completely immaterial whereas a sub-atomic particle, which continually pops into and out of existence, has some physical nature. Of course physicists get around this by saying that nothingness is physical, LOL. Can you say the same about logical processes in computer CPU?

kyrani99
11-11-15, 18:39
That's terrible. Anyway I was describing a trust in your parents in very early age, let's say from birth to age of 5. I would have hard time to believe that they gave you hard time at this young age.

I have recollections from about 3yo when my grandfather spent a lot of time with me and he was very good to me. At about 5yo or so my mother forced my father to take his old age pension off him to stop him from buying things for me and my sisters, eg paints and toys. My mother, who later said she hated me from the first moment she saw me, was hostile and caused my father to be hostile. But I had spiritual experiences at that early age and I was aware from that time of my spiritual allies. I also have strong recollections of earlier lifetimes. All of these played a far bigger role in developing my belief systems than my parents.

It is hard for most people to believe that some people are hurt or harmed and some very badly from a very young age, even from birth, but that is because most people don't see the evidence. It is what helps abusers get to abuse and as far as earthly law goes, many get away with it. But if you read legal cases you will find that there are also many that become convicted felons.

The point though that this discussion makes is that belief may be influenced by a child's relationship with a parent or caregiver.

It also gave me a lot of confidence in myself because I survived those times and now working as an activist I am confronted by a huge army of toxic people, some in government positions or professional positions, who are working hard to destroy me and thus shut me up and I can confidently stand against them because I believe in myself and in Justice, "the law above the law".

kyrani99
11-11-15, 18:41
Sometimes genes are expressed or shut down by way of epigenetics, environmental factor. Although it happens it is not a very active phenomenon, like overwriting all genes at will, sort to speak.
Epigenetics plays a big role but this becomes more obvious when we are stressed or confronted by harsh environmental conditions. Cancer is one area that I see epigenetics involved. The idea that we get cancer cells all the time and the immune system kills them is garbage IMO. The big evidence is that in metastasis, where a number of cancer and associated stromal cells leave one site and go to a new site, they cannot do this without the immune cells involvement. The epithelial tissues of the blood vessels need to become permeable for the cancer and other cells to pass through and enter the blood stream. This means mast cells release histamines in the local area to cause vessel dilation and tissue permeability.

On the other end the cells have to exit. The blood is screaming through the vessels at 70mph or more so the cells need to become "sticky" at the right spot to enable them to be stationary enough to pass through. This is again achieved by the help of immune system cells releasing interleukins and again mast cells to get tissue permeability. So the reality is that cancer cells come into being from stem cells and there are typically 30,000 to 50,000 genetic changes most of which are epigenetic. And I found those changes are fully reversible. And the most incredible thing is that one can deliberately effect cancer remission, NOT by doing anything but by knowing why the cancer developed, why did the epigenetic changes come about! The ability to discard manufactured beliefs and walk away free. I can say this because of my own experiences with cancer. Cancer is a paper tiger!

kyrani99
11-11-15, 18:45
There is also a compartment for feeling feer, the amygdala. It is interesting to know that there are clinical cases of people who lost amygdala or nerve connection to amygdala. With amygdala they also lost feeling of fear. By these examples of patients there is a prove that fear is located in our brain, and released to feel it upon certain stimuli, like seeing snakes, spiders, angry person with a knife, a scary movie, etc.

These the patient cases are nothing more than anecdotal evidence AND the scientists' own prejudices. I laugh when I read them say "the woman was not fazed by the poisonous snakes" as if fear is some sort of weakness. Even trained snake handlers, who have little fear, still treat the situation with care. The reality is that fear is the mobilization of the body for rapid and strenuous action. And it also includes maintaining that mobilization as long as the danger persists. It is a natural, normal response to danger. The problem here is that all this smacks of "purpose-driven" and the scientists in this article want to believe the "body is a machine" paradigm or are paid to believe it.

I have listened to many neuroscientists and they all have a different slant on things. However I think that Dr Damasio has the best explanations. The amygdala are involved in many interactions with about 10 or 12 different areas of the brain. And they are also involved in emotion based memories. But I don't think they are "emotional centers". The emotions are complex processes that take place in the body. The amygdala help trigger the autonomic nervous system to accelerate the heart rate and in the sweating mechanism etc. We are born with the ability to abruptly raise our metabolism so mobilize our body for action almost in an instant. Then we learn about dangers and we use this mechanism.

After the emotional reactivity in the body the person will appraise their bodily reactivity. This, according to Dr Damasio, is feeling. IMO when we think about emotion, we tend to think about the entire experience, some of which is initially in the brain (the perception of danger), some of which is in the body (the emotional reactivity) and some of which is again in the brain (the appraisal or feeling). So we tend to think about the experience as a whole but it is not all in the brain.

kyrani99
11-11-15, 18:48
Did I get you right? You believe more in untested hypothesis by way of YouTube video than theory of relativity which is being used in our GPS system, not mentioning positively tested by many independent scientists?

I didn't say I believe more but that some evidence cited causes me to question what I have believed. For instance there are flight paths that are straight lines or almost straight lines but on a globe would be a triangular path. For example Johannesburg to Dubai to Perth. Also Sydney to East coast of USA to Chile. How to explain this?
Also no one has ever succeeded in flying around the globe over both poles. Plenty have flown over the north pole and there have been expeditions to the north pole but none in the south. There are impenetrable walls of ice and extreme weather conditions. This doesn't say that antartica is not an island continent of ice but it also doesn't dispute that it might be the edge around a disc.

On the other hand there is the evidence of satellites. The ones that orbit the earth I can see can be indistinguishable from circular paths above a disc. But the geostationary orbits are not explained by a disc but would be explained by a globe. So where is the reality? (BTW The space pics and the "man on the moon" IMO is a poorly made movie by NASA scientists so I discard it as trash.)

Scientific theories are put forward after observation and evidence and they can stand for many years but can still can be replaced when new evidence arises. Newton's laws work as far as the mathematics is concerned but Einstein put forth that the curvature of spacetime caused objects to fall in a particular manner so gave the appearance of a force we call gravity.

kyrani99
11-11-15, 18:51
Can you say the same about logical processes in computer CPU?

Logical processes in a computer can be influenced. I used to use a game program that ended with steams of different colors appearing on the screen. I can cause the computer to select one color until I chose it to display a different color and so on. The game programmers would have used some routine to chose colors at random. It is done by mental selection.

All events that take place in the physical realm are preceded by mental /non-physical selections. It appears different but really it is a giant matrix and we can, when we have the "right credentials" toggle the selections.

kyrani99
11-11-15, 21:07
Sometimes genes are expressed or shut down by way of epigenetics, environmental factor. Although it happens it is not a very active phenomenon, like overwriting all genes at will, sort to speak.

Have a look at this video on HuffPost http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/super-genes-deepak-chopra-rudolph-tanzi/563d05e999ec6db441000475

LeBrok
12-11-15, 06:27
I have recollections from about 3yo when my grandfather spent a lot of time with me and he was very good to me. At about 5yo or so my mother forced my father to take his old age pension off him to stop him from buying things for me and my sisters, eg paints and toys. My mother, who later said she hated me from the first moment she saw me, was hostile and caused my father to be hostile. But I had spiritual experiences at that early age and I was aware from that time of my spiritual allies. I also have strong recollections of earlier lifetimes. All of these played a far bigger role in developing my belief systems than my parents. That's really awful. My sympathy goes to you, and I'm sure many Eupedia members.


It is hard for most people to believe that some people are hurt or harmed and some very badly from a very young age, even from birth, but that is because most people don't see the evidence. It is what helps abusers get to abuse and as far as earthly law goes, many get away with it. But if you read legal cases you will find that there are also many that become convicted felons. I believe that's the case.



It also gave me a lot of confidence in myself because I survived those times and now working as an activist I am confronted by a huge army of toxic people, some in government positions or professional positions, who are working hard to destroy me and thus shut me up and I can confidently stand against them because I believe in myself and in Justice, "the law above the law".
What can I say, you are a fighter!

LeBrok
12-11-15, 06:52
Epigenetics plays a big role but this becomes more obvious when we are stressed or confronted by harsh environmental conditions. Cancer is one area that I see epigenetics involved. The idea that we get cancer cells all the time and the immune system kills them is garbage IMO. The big evidence is that in metastasis, where a number of cancer and associated stromal cells leave one site and go to a new site, they cannot do this without the immune cells involvement. The epithelial tissues of the blood vessels need to become permeable for the cancer and other cells to pass through and enter the blood stream. This means mast cells release histamines in the local area to cause vessel dilation and tissue permeability. I stand enlighten. Any idea if cancer can travel by means of lymph node system, and avoiding difficulties of vascular permeation?


On the other end the cells have to exit. The blood is screaming through the vessels at 70mph or more so the cells need to become "sticky" at the right spot to enable them to be stationary enough to pass through. This is again achieved by the help of immune system cells releasing interleukins and again mast cells to get tissue permeability. So the reality is that cancer cells come into being from stem cells and there are typically 30,000 to 50,000 genetic changes most of which are epigenetic. Perhaps in all types of known cancers so many mutations were recognized. However these are not necessary in any one type. Basically it needs mutation(s) to ignore division restriction of telomerase, few more mutations to be invasive and malignant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most cases of cancer are done by molecular damage to the genome, mutations or deletions and not just by switching genes off and on. I'm not saying that epigenetics is not involved in the process, but seems not to be a main culprit.



And I found those changes are fully reversible. And the most incredible thing is that one can deliberately effect cancer remission, NOT by doing anything but by knowing why the cancer developed, why did the epigenetic changes come about! The ability to discard manufactured beliefs and walk away free. I can say this because of my own experiences with cancer. Cancer is a paper tiger!I'm glad you conquered your cancer. However I have a hard time to believe that you did it by shear will power.

LeBrok
12-11-15, 07:30
These the patient cases are nothing more than anecdotal evidence AND the scientists' own prejudices. I laugh when I read them say "the woman was not fazed by the poisonous snakes" as if fear is some sort of weakness. Even trained snake handlers, who have little fear, still treat the situation with care. The reality is that fear is the mobilization of the body for rapid and strenuous action. And it also includes maintaining that mobilization as long as the danger persists. It is a natural, normal response to danger. The problem here is that all this smacks of "purpose-driven" and the scientists in this article want to believe the "body is a machine" paradigm or are paid to believe it. You can't dismiss it so easily. Tests done on animals confirm that amigdala is mostly responsible for fear factor. Test of this sort on humans are unethical therefore it is hard to come up with enough examples to do a proper statistical research. The few cases that pop up naturally are precious and give us insides to inner-working of our brain.


I have listened to many neuroscientists and they all have a different slant on things. However I think that Dr Damasio has the best explanations. The amygdala are involved in many interactions with about 10 or 12 different areas of the brain. And they are also involved in emotion based memories. But I don't think they are "emotional centers". The emotions are complex processes that take place in the body. The amygdala help trigger the autonomic nervous system to accelerate the heart rate and in the sweating mechanism etc. We are born with the ability to abruptly raise our metabolism so mobilize our body for action almost in an instant. Then we learn about dangers and we use this mechanism.

After the emotional reactivity in the body the person will appraise their bodily reactivity. This, according to Dr Damasio, is feeling. IMO when we think about emotion, we tend to think about the entire experience, some of which is initially in the brain (the perception of danger), some of which is in the body (the emotional reactivity) and some of which is again in the brain (the appraisal or feeling). So we tend to think about the experience as a whole but it is not all in the brain.
I agree that emotions are necessary for decision making. They are with us in every second of our life and encoded in every our memory. I read Damasio article few years ago and it was an eye opener.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/thinking-faster

LeBrok
12-11-15, 07:49
I didn't say I believe more but that some evidence cited causes me to question what I have believed. For instance there are flight paths that are straight lines or almost straight lines but on a globe would be a triangular path. For example Johannesburg to Dubai to Perth. Also Sydney to East coast of USA to Chile. How to explain this?
Also no one has ever succeeded in flying around the globe over both poles. Plenty have flown over the north pole and there have been expeditions to the north pole but none in the south. There are impenetrable walls of ice and extreme weather conditions. This doesn't say that antartica is not an island continent of ice but it also doesn't dispute that it might be the edge around a disc.

On the other hand there is the evidence of satellites. The ones that orbit the earth I can see can be indistinguishable from circular paths above a disc. But the geostationary orbits are not explained by a disc but would be explained by a globe. So where is the reality? Do you believe in GPS, ubiquitoes on cellphone these days? This should point you in the right direction.
On one hand you have a working device in your hand pointing to existence of satellites and a globe, on other hand you have some guy on youtube telling unconfirmed hypothesis. Make your choice.



(BTW The space pics and the "man on the moon" IMO is a poorly made movie by NASA scientists so I discard it as trash.)Tell me you are joking. The movie is from 60s. How good cameras were then? Not mentioning that on the moon, in lack of atmosphere, everything either glows in strong sunlight or is in deep shadows. This make extremely hard environment for a sharp good quality movies with primitive film making equipment from 50 years ago. Buy yourself a good telescope and you can see yourself the lander and moon rover they left behind.


Scientific theories are put forward after observation and evidence and they can stand for many years but can still can be replaced when new evidence arises. Newton's laws work as far as the mathematics is concerned but Einstein put forth that the curvature of spacetime caused objects to fall in a particular manner so gave the appearance of a force we call gravity.Pay attention that Newton theory is still valid. It is valid because on slow moving earth and low gravity environment we can ignore relativity. Therefore you can calculate trajectories of objects on earth using Newton equation to extreme precision. What Einstein did is he expended Newtons equations for use in any place in Universe. If Newton was wrong we would stop using his equations, but we still use them. His theory and equation is still right, Einstein just expended them.

LeBrok
12-11-15, 07:51
Logical processes in a computer can be influenced. I used to use a game program that ended with steams of different colors appearing on the screen. I can cause the computer to select one color until I chose it to display a different color and so on. The game programmers would have used some routine to chose colors at random. It is done by mental selection.

All events that take place in the physical realm are preceded by mental /non-physical selections. It appears different but really it is a giant matrix and we can, when we have the "right credentials" toggle the selections.
What are the next 6/49 numbers? Can you make yourself young again?

kyrani99
12-11-15, 10:59
That's really awful. My sympathy goes to you, and I'm sure many Eupedia members.

What can I say, you are a fighter!

I did feel it was unfair through to my 20s but not greatly. However I am a warrior and my early years have equipped me to be a winner so I am very happy about it now. I can see that if I had loving parents I may be at a loss now and that would have been bad. Often what may seem as a disadvantage at the time turns out to be an advantage. Like Steve Jobs said "you can only connect the dots with hindsight".

kyrani99
12-11-15, 12:01
I'm glad you conquered your cancer. However I have a hard time to believe that you did it by shear will power.

No, I did not conquer cancer by will power.

I had cancer 8 times and learnt not only to deliberately effect cancer remission but to avoid developing cancer.
To answer your other questions I have to give some explanation first.

The first was stage 4 ovarian cancer with metastasis to the uterus, cervix, bowel and both lungs. That was in 1993-4 doctors said terminal and gave me 6-12 months to live. I had a spontaneous remission after leaving the area where I lived. I did not understand it at the time but I followed my intuition and left and broke all my ties with everyone. All I saw at that time is that there were some bad influences.

Then in 2004 I developed a lump in my oesophagus and suffered for weeks with bad flu-like symptoms and an inexplicable, episodic anger. Then one day I saw some people, who had come and asked for water before all this started, violating my property. I suddenly felt the anger arise and I went down and confronted them. After I resolved the problem miraculously my flu-like symptoms vanished. In about 15 mins.! Then I realized it wasn't the flu but part of oesophageal cancer. I had a strong feeling that the lump would go away and it did in about another 2-3 weeks.

That year in November I was being hassled again. Then in late December I found that I had a lump the size of a golf ball in my lower groin near where my ovary would be. This time I threw caution to the wind and decided to investigate using Vipasana (insight meditation which I had master years earlier).

I will post this in sections to make it easier to read.

kyrani99
12-11-15, 12:09
Any idea if cancer can travel by means of lymph node system, and avoiding difficulties of vascular permeation?

I found a cell colony which had various types of cells. Some divided normally with same looking daughter cells, but some divided atypically with two very different daughter cells. I realized, from my university knowledge of physiology and anatomy that these were stem cells.

I also saw these stem cells in a lymph node in the area. I did not see them travel there but the lymph all drains into the blood below the clavicle area into veins that gets taken to the heart and thus the general circulation. I allowed the issues to stand and the hassle to continue while I investigated because by now I realized that cancer was a person's reactions to ideas or more correctly manufactured beliefs. Finally a lump developed in the bowel and possibly in the same area as the first time.

What I learnt helped me deliberately effect cancer remission in all of the subsequent incidents.

kyrani99
12-11-15, 12:27
Some important findings.
How the body reacts to images and ideas is critical. There is the involvment of mirror neurons in the brain to stimulate some part of the body, but this is not enough to fool the body. So to get past this toxic people use or create issues that the person may have to get emotional reactivity, especially in some relevant part of the body, which they are looking to target.

So mentally presented images and ideas, through a closely related party, will cause the person to have activity in that part of the body, but if there is also emotional reactivity then there is already high activity that area, more than would arise from mirror neurons. When this happens the person's perceptions and their bodily responses move to some action.

This is a huge subject but to try and give some example here. If there are issues of loss that causes sadness then there is reactivity in the lungs so the lungs can become a target. If a person smokes then that too can be used because smoking causes damage to delicate lung tissues (but not to DNA!).

If the loss is serious then grief and that may create acivity in the bowel.

And I found ideas, which are often cunningly presented, were also used. For example I kept seeing the same woman with two very young children as if walking them home from school walking up my street whenever I was returning home from running my errands. It didn't matter if it was morning, noon or afternoon, the same scene. And there was an idea of "where did they come from". I realized that the meaning attributed to this idea was not simply "from which street did they come from" but associated with an almost subliminal image of a child being born so the "where did that come from" had the meaning of womb. And more than that as "come from" or created out of ova (and sperm). It is possible that a similar means may be used to target the prostate gland in men.

Then I remembered that in the first instance, in 1993, a similar method was used. I used to hear a baby cry often in the night time and there too there were ideas like "there seems to be a problem where that is coming from". Here again the meaning was not simply that there was a problem from where the crying could be heard but images of a problem from where a baby comes from. Again a meaning was being conveyed at an almost subliminal level that was pointing at the ovary.

kyrani99
12-11-15, 13:10
Perhaps in all types of known cancers so many mutations were recognized. However these are not necessary in any one type. Basically it needs mutation(s) to ignore division restriction of telomerase, few more mutations to be invasive and malignant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most cases of cancer are done by molecular damage to the genome, mutations or deletions and not just by switching genes off and on. I'm not saying that epigenetics is not involved in the process, but seems not to be a main culprit.

So in a nutshell:
cancer is about stem-cell mediated immunity erroneously ignited in the body owing to some perceptions and manufactured beliefs.

1. With the perception/belief of damage the body will mount an immune response, i.e., an inflammatory response. This is commonly seen with cancer.
If there is a realization that the idea is false or if some remedy is believed to be effective then the inflammatory response ceases and healing takes place.

My findings are substantiated by science.
In drug trials in the testing of chemotherapy drugs, patients in the CONTROL arm, who are given sugar pills or water, AND who believe they have been given the real drug will experience "side effects" such as losing their hear. Their hair however hasn't fallen out due to toxic drugs but because they believed there would be damage and their immune system moves to clear up the damage. But the inflammatory response causes damage so their hair falls out.

In the cessation of the inflammatory response..
There is evidence in Dr Morsely's experiments with knee damage from autoimmune inflammatory responses, eg arthritis. Patients who got a sham surgery but who believed they got the real surgery got well. Their arthritis in the knee or shoulder etc., disappeared. Here again belief is the critical factor. They believed that the surgeon clean up the damaged cartilage so there was no longer a need for an inflammatory response.

kyrani99
12-11-15, 19:19
Perhaps in all types of known cancers so many mutations were recognized. However these are not necessary in any one type. Basically it needs mutation(s) to ignore division restriction of telomerase, few more mutations to be invasive and malignant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most cases of cancer are done by molecular damage to the genome, mutations or deletions and not just by switching genes off and on. I'm not saying that epigenetics is not involved in the process, but seems not to be a main culprit.

My second findings
2. If there is the perception that the area of the body could be protected from damage then stem cells will modify their gene expressions so as to create a cell barrier or wall. Of course this means a mass of cells or tumour.

My findings DIFFER from the official medical opinion BUT the evidence supports my findings AND there are serious faults with the official story.

Cancer is huge variety of cells with 30,000 to 50,000 gene changes and hundreds, some say thousands of unique genetic signatures, which means hundreds or thousands of different cell types. Many are now describing a tumor as an extraordinary organ, with stromal cell support and the presence of many immune cell. It is not just a mass.

They claim cancer begins with one cell that is damaged or has some DNA copying errors and that normally the immune system destroys these cells. But with many immune cells in the organ? The claim is that they are masked from the immune system! But the things that happen, eg metastasis, can't happen without the immune system cells' help! eerrrr umm. They are mute when asked.

IMO they have labeled some genes to sell a story. Tumor suppressor genes are normal genes that slow down cell division, repair DNA mistakes, or tell cells when to die. But if you describe them as gene that protects a cell from a "one step on the way to cancer" and that when this gene mutates (mutates only means changes) to cause a loss or reduction in its function, then the cell can progress to cancer, ( ..well err umm with a combination of other genetic changes of course, of course) then you got a label that sells a story.

The same goes for the so-called proto-oncogenes and oncogenes, cancer genes! These again are normal genes that help cells grow. But if you describe them as genes, which if mutate or get over-expressed then they can convert a normal cell into a cancer cell and make it grow out of control, then they can sell their story.

Both of the above genes function according to their environment and circumstances.

Telomeres are at the end of chromosomes to protect the genes. These get used up after many cell divisions. There is an enzyme telomerase which restores the telomeres so that they never get used up, hence allow the cell perpetual growth.

Then there is angiogenesis, which is about getting new blood vessels to grow through the tumour for nourishment and to remove wastes.

All of this is supposed to arise out of damage or miscopying of genes, with a splash of evolution. Some they call driver genes and others they call passenger genes (passenger because they don't see what these genes do). And they call all this "uncontrolled cell proliferation, loss of apoptosis, tissue invasion and metastasis and angiogenesis" all pathogentic.. really!

Guess what all of these qualities, the rapid growth, the "breaks" not active, the telomerase action, the angiogenesis, the BFB cycles (deletions/amplifications of genes) are ALL seen in the embryo! They are all qualities of embryonic stem cells and many of them are seen in adult stem cells! Gene expression changes are also seen in rapid growth for tissue repair, regenerating a variety of cell types in the human by switching genes on and off (to replace worn out specialized cell types from progenetor cells). The enzyme telomerase is also found in adult stem cells. Oh but they are quite about all this.

This is scientific evidence carefully guarded in those peer-reviewed, prestigious scientific journals supports my findings.

kyrani99
12-11-15, 19:33
Note: You might like to read up on the dynamic nature of the genome.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Barbara_McClintock.aspx
Dr McClintock discovered transposable elements, genes that change position among the chromosomes and won a Nobel Prize for her work. She worked with Maize. Her work however was interpreted in a way that did not bring out her later achievement, which was to show evidence that the genome is dynamic and highly responsive to external stimuli. I would say the cells are highly responsive and hence change the genome to suit their needs. This work was done during the 1960 and 1970s. This was a time when big investments were made by pharmceutical companies and of course the financiers that own them and the take over of universities and how medicine was studied and researched. So it is not surprising to see that there were economic reasons for how her work was interpreted.

Deletions and amplifications of chromosomal segments appear to serve to increase the mutability of the genome thereby accelerating the acquisition of changed genes. In cancer these are the oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. Yes they can be seen when mice embryos or mice tissues are subjected to toxic substances but is it damage or are their cells moving to minimize harm from the toxic substances.

And yes there are mosaics created in the embryo genome that lead to genetic disorders but why do they arise?

kyrani99
12-11-15, 19:36
I am currently in the process of making youtube videos to explain how to deliberately effect cancer remission. You can find the basic videos leading up to the cancer videos on the home page of my blog.

Basically it requires a new look, to realize the nature of the foul game play, to appreciate that the body has fantastic capabilities and that it is purpose-driven. Beliefs are of critical importance. Manufactured beliefs are dismantled once a person realizes the nature of the foul play. And an understanding of how our body can respond to ideas that we may uphold when we have that ah ha experience.

Cancer is fully reversible and I have used the occasions to rejuvenate and regenerate the organs and tissues which were under attack and which had developed cancer. I also found that one can accelerate the process of spontaneous remission and how to "stage-manage" one's biology, in the light of understanding, affirmations and directives to the Universe so that stem cells do not create cancer.

kyrani99
12-11-15, 20:18
Do you believe in GPS, ubiquitoes on cellphone these days? This should point you in the right direction.
On one hand you have a working device in your hand pointing to existence of satellites and a globe, on other hand you have some guy on youtube telling unconfirmed hypothesis. Make your choice..

With GPS satellites there is no way of telling the difference between rotating round a globe or going round in a circle above a disc. However the geostationary orbits I can't explain using a disc model of the earth. This is evidence for a globe unless there is something I don't understand.

I am not prepared to simply make a choice. I need to see scientific evidence enough to convince me that it is either a globe or a disc.

kyrani99
12-11-15, 20:23
Pay attention that Newton theory is still valid. It is valid because on slow moving earth and low gravity environment we can ignore relativity. Therefore you can calculate trajectories of objects on earth using Newton equation to extreme precision. What Einstein did is he expended Newtons equations for use in any place in Universe. If Newton was wrong we would stop using his equations, but we still use them. His theory and equation is still right, Einstein just expended them.

No. The maths is good. We can use Newton's equations because they work but the physics is wrong. Einstein turned everything upside down. Time is no longer constant, same for all observers but relative. So is space and space and time cannot be taken apart.

kyrani99
14-11-15, 17:21
Can you make yourself young again?

Given the right knowledge and power even resurrection is possible. But of course who wants to live in this limited existence for very long. With spiritual growth there are realms that are pure bliss and which can be enjoyed forever.