honig@ics.uci.edu (David Honig) (02/21/91)
In article <1991Feb19.233028.19992@midway.uchicago.edu> den0@quads.uchicago.edu (funky chicken) writes: >IMHO, this theory should be obvious. Profound religious experiences >involve non-ordinary states of consciousness. Period. This doesn't >necessarily mean that every religious experience involves leaving your >body and being taught how to fly by psychedlic jesus jellyfish, drugs >need not be involved and there are plenty of different religious "highs." I think a very interesting question is, What are those circuits doing there in the first place? Its easy to understand what the circuits for, e.g., love, ie, pair-bonding are for: humans take forever to raise, and its easier if you have two helping. Many animals share these features. I've read that it was useful in smaller societies to have the ability to bond to one's tribe and feel brotherhood; of course this has been exploited in patriotism and is part of many modern religions. So, an interesting question is: Are states of religious awe and ecstacy artifacts or have they been selected for? -- David Honig .."Think anyone will mind that I don't have a tie?" ---Cliff Stoll .."Don't worry," Bob said. "At your level of abstraction, it doesn't make any difference" ---Robert Morris, chief scientist, NSA
jeff@spdcc.COM (Jeff Fabijanic) (02/21/91)
In article <27C2AD16.24022@ics.uci.edu> honig@ics.uci.edu (David Honig) writes: >In article <1991Feb19.233028.19992@midway.uchicago.edu> den0@quads.uchicago.edu >(funky chicken) writes: >>IMHO, this theory should be obvious. Profound religious experiences >>involve non-ordinary states of consciousness. Period. This doesn't >>necessarily mean that every religious experience involves leaving your >>body and being taught how to fly by psychedlic jesus jellyfish, drugs >>need not be involved and there are plenty of different religious "highs." > >I think a very interesting question is, What are those circuits doing there >in the first place? (more thoughts along these lines) For anyone who is interested in what some very unique individuals have to say about such things (why we seem wired for religious ecstacy, etc.) I would suggest picking up some of Falcon Press' books, particularly "Prometheus Rising" and "Sex and Drugs" - both by R.A. Wilson, and "Undoing Yourself" (2 volumes) by Dr. Chris Hyatt. These folks are definately brain-bending and best of all, they have a healthy sense of their own ignorance. That is, they don't claim to have the TRUTH, nor do they resist the impulse to poke fun at themselves (and others of course). A must for any cognitive explorers. Jeff
jls@yoda.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) (02/21/91)
>I think a very interesting question is, What are those circuits doing there >in the first place? An excellent question! I've wondered that myself. Either there aren't really any specialized circuits and we're just overloading/altering the ones we have, or we're tapping into something deeper that raises all kinds of weird possibilities. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (03/05/91)
In article <27C2AD16.24022@ics.uci.edu> honig@ics.uci.edu (David Honig) writes: > >Its easy to understand what the circuits for, e.g., love, ie, >pair-bonding are for: humans take forever to raise, and its easier if >you have two helping. Many animals share these features. > >I've read that it was useful in smaller societies to have the ability to bond >to one's tribe and feel brotherhood; of course this has been exploited in >patriotism and is part of many modern religions. > >So, an interesting question is: Are states of religious awe and >ecstacy artifacts or have they been selected for? > Interesting, but not a biological question, alas. "Selecting for" and subjective mental states like "awe" and "ecstasy" are miles apart in the mechanisms of how we understand them. To relate the two meaningfully will occur after we solve the problem of the interface of genetics, neural communication, and cultural transmission as adaptive information processing and transmittal networks in their roles as structures for the maintenance of a self-regulating system. I fear that may be a while yet. Seriously, though, you can't talk about "selecting for" religious awe. The system is much more complex than that. >-- >David Honig Thom Cleland tcleland@ucsd.edu