Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Gee]

I am disappointed and expected better of you. I agree that religion is going to continue to evolve, but to compare it to Halloween? How many nations have been upended and people destroyed because of Halloween?

Can no one in this forum be sincere?

Gee

Gee,, you misunderstand Lucky. Halloween is an infantilised version of Samhain the ancient festival at this time of the year. Recently Halloween has become still more degraded by commercialisation and brutal images.

I know what Halloween is, and don't believe I misunderstood anything. Lucky simply employed a tactic that is often used in debate and war to weaken the opponent's position through the use of misinformation. By comparing religion to Halloween, he made religion seem powerless and a little old fashioned -- nothing to worry about. It would be like me comparing the water main leak that flooded half my street last year to the devastation that North Carolina is experiencing after the hurricane, which would make NC's problems seem small -- nothing to worry about.

Since I believed Lucky to be too intelligent to believe such nonsense, I wondered if the post was sincere.

Gee

Uummm... I wasn't comparing religion to Halloween, Halloween (as pointed out previously) is a religious observance. One that has evolved over time.

You used a double negative, "not unlike", which causes the negatives to cancel each other, so you actually stated "like" which is a comparison.

You are correct that leaders can and have leveraged tribalism within large groups to violent and destructive ends.

I never stated that and wouldn't state that.

Sometimes that tribalism takes the form of religious sectarianism, sometimes it is in the form of English soccer club fandom. Is this violence caused by soccer or by a herd with a sense of commonality and a common enemy? Hey, I'm not personally religious much and a huge organized religion skeptic, but I see religion shrinking in influence in the West and while it is a huge influence elsewhere, I can imagine those who can be swayed to violence by religion, also being swayed to violence by say, nationalism, if religions didn't exist.

So religion is only about violence? You don't think that is just a tad biased?

Gee

[Gee]

Earlier today, I was reading an article about bacteria. It seems that when some bacteria is under "stress" because of overcrowding, it can change and shorten it's life span. I wish I knew how to post articles as it was interesting.

You can post a link to any webpage quite easily. [Red text should be placed in square brackets.]

url=www.source. <text labelling or describing the link; often its title> /url

But if you do post a link, you may find that your post is marked to be approved or disapproved before publication. I assume this is to retain control of links to Bad People and Bad Places, which makes sense (to me).

PC:

Thank you for the information. I probably won't try to find that article again to post because it is a little off topic. The only reason that I mentioned it, is because it is another example of communication that is outside of and between life forms -- and does not seem to require a brain.

Years ago I was reading about incubation periods for different diseases and learned that when the bacteria/virus reaches a certain concentration in a body, then they all "turn on" and the disease attacks the body. So being me, I asked the dumb question, "How do they know what the concentration is and when it is enough?" "They have no eyes, noses, ears, etc., so how do they know? Do they feel it?" Is this just another example of knowledge that is sensed? That would mean that it works outside of the body like the spiritual/emotional.

I read another article that theorized that it was more likely that we are in consciousness, than consciousness is in us. If the spiritual and/or emotion works between and outside of us, then that would be compatible with the religious idea that "God" is everywhere.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

Years ago I was reading about incubation periods for different diseases and learned that when the bacteria/virus reaches a certain concentration in a body, then they all "turn on" and the disease attacks the body. So being me, I asked the dumb question, "How do they know what the concentration is and when it is enough?" "They have no eyes, noses, ears, etc., so how do they know? Do they feel it?" Is this just another example of knowledge that is sensed? That would mean that it works outside of the body like the spiritual/emotional.

Perhaps they can sense each other by simple proximity? I don't know, of course, but that does seem possible, doesn't it?

I read another article that theorized that it was more likely that we are in consciousness, than consciousness is in us. If the spiritual and/or emotion works between and outside of us, then that would be compatible with the religious idea that "God" is everywhere.

Our definition of consciousness is vague, at the least. Whatever it is, there is no evidence that it extends outside of our bodies. ... And none, of course, that says this is *not* so. But we are learning all the time. Perhaps this is one we can solve, in time? We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

[Sy Borg]

Years ago I was reading about incubation periods for different diseases and learned that when the bacteria/virus reaches a certain concentration in a body, then they all "turn on" and the disease attacks the body. So being me, I asked the dumb question, "How do they know what the concentration is and when it is enough?" "They have no eyes, noses, ears, etc., so how do they know? Do they feel it?" Is this just another example of knowledge that is sensed? That would mean that it works outside of the body like the spiritual/emotional.

Perhaps they can sense each other by simple proximity? I don't know, of course, but that does seem possible, doesn't it?

How would all the water in your body start to boil at the same time when placed in extreme heat?

In the case of viruses, I assume that, as they multiply, they reach a certain threshold that changes in the body's internal chemistry (or maybe temperature, magnetic fields or whatever) until it reaches a point that will cause reactions in the viruses.

I read another article that theorized that it was more likely that we are in consciousness, than consciousness is in us. If the spiritual and/or emotion works between and outside of us, then that would be compatible with the religious idea that "God" is everywhere.

Our definition of consciousness is vague, at the least. Whatever it is, there is no evidence that it extends outside of our bodies. ... And none, of course, that says this is *not* so. But we are learning all the time. Perhaps this is one we can solve, in time? We'll have to wait and see, won't we? 😉
[/quote]

[Lagayascienza]

Years ago I was reading about incubation periods for different diseases and learned that when the bacteria/virus reaches a certain concentration in a body, then they all "turn on" and the disease attacks the body. So being me, I asked the dumb question, "How do they know what the concentration is and when it is enough?" "They have no eyes, noses, ears, etc., so how do they know? Do they feel it?" Is this just another example of knowledge that is sensed? That would mean that it works outside of the body like the spiritual/emotional.

Perhaps they can sense each other by simple proximity? I don't know, of course, but that does seem possible, doesn't it?

How would all the water in your body start to boil at the same time when placed in extreme heat?

In the case of viruses, I assume that, as they multiply, they reach a certain threshold that changes in the body's internal chemistry (or maybe temperature, magnetic fields or whatever) until it reaches a point that will cause reactions in the viruses.

Yes, I think that's right.

Viruses are, by some definitions, not even alive. They cannot survive outside an organism. And they cannot even reproduce. For viral production to occur, a virus has to hack an infected cell in a way that makes the infected cell produce more virions because the viruses themselves cannot do it. The new virions produced by the infected cell then break out through the cell wall, often destroying the cell in the process. They then head off to find new cells to infect.

The cell destruction is partly what makes us sick. For example, the herpes virus destroys cells on our lips which creates the painful blisters we call cold sores. We can also feel ill because when the body recognizes invaders, viral or bacterial, it mounts a massive immune response to destroy them. This fight takes energy and causes our temperature to spike and makes us feel tired.

Some viruses will turn on as soon as they enter a cell and make the cell produce more virus. Others viruses enter cells and can remain dormant for long periods. The herpes virus is an example. It can remain dormant until your immune system is a bit weak for some reason, and then it takes the opportunity to cause a cell to create new virions which then break out of cells and, in the process, cause cold sores.

I don’t think that viruses actually communicate and say, “Hey, guys, let’s do this”. However, it has been discovered that phages (viruses that attack bacteria) can, after the death of large numbers of bacteria, release viral proteins that somehow cause remaining phages to switch off and stop killing bacteria and to instead retreat and lie dormant in bacterial genomes. Cell death thus ceases until the phages “decide” to start causing bacterial cells to produce new phages which then go on to destroy other bacterial cells when they break out of the cell.

So there is some form of communication going on. But it is not conscious communication.

I read another article that theorized that it was more likely that we are in consciousness, than consciousness is in us. If the spiritual and/or emotion works between and outside of us, then that would be compatible with the religious idea that "God" is everywhere.

Our definition of consciousness is vague, at the least. Whatever it is, there is no evidence that it extends outside of our bodies. ... And none, of course, that says this is *not* so. But we are learning all the time. Perhaps this is one we can solve, in time? We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

Right. Notions such as the "brain-as-antenna" and that we "tune-in" to consciousness cannot be disproved, and they can be used as support for Idealism or religion. But, so far, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support such notions.

[Sculptor1]

Given what religion is, the assumption in this thread that it is in some way necessarily connected with Spirituality is false.

Religion can be understood as a system of beliefs and practices that bind individuals or communities to a higher power or moral code, guiding their actions and shaping their understanding of the world through repeated observance and devotion. So even where it does mention "spirit", the observance of religion is antithetical to spirituality.

Spirituality is personal and individual experience of seeking meaning, connection, and purpose in life, often in relation to something greater than oneself, but without adherence to a specific religious framework. THis by necessity has to avoid dogma and the institutionalisation of ideas. In essence, it’s a more flexible, often individualized pursuit of inner peace, personal growth, and a sense of transcendence, outside of traditional religious structures.

Only a true atheist can be free to persue spiritual understanding of the world.

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that a "true atheist" is as valid a notion as a "true Scotsman".

[Fanman]

Sculptor1,

Only a true atheist can be free to persue spiritual understanding of the world.

In your own words (as a true atheist), what do you perceive as a spiritual understanding of the world?

[Gee]

Years ago I was reading about incubation periods for different diseases and learned that when the bacteria/virus reaches a certain concentration in a body, then they all "turn on" and the disease attacks the body. So being me, I asked the dumb question, "How do they know what the concentration is and when it is enough?" "They have no eyes, noses, ears, etc., so how do they know? Do they feel it?" Is this just another example of knowledge that is sensed? That would mean that it works outside of the body like the spiritual/emotional.

Perhaps they can sense each other by simple proximity? I don't know, of course, but that does seem possible, doesn't it?

So you are saying that they "sense" each other without the benefit of their five senses -- sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Does that mean that they would be using their sixth sense? Awareness? Come to think of it, all the senses work outside and between bodies. We see something that is outside of ourselves, hear something other then ourselves, smell something that is outside of us (or under our arm pits) taste something other than ourselves and touch something. It should not be so surprising to learn that awareness also works outside of ourselves. The sixth sense that causes awareness is felt.

I read another article that theorized that it was more likely that we are in consciousness, than consciousness is in us. If the spiritual and/or emotion works between and outside of us, then that would be compatible with the religious idea that "God" is everywhere.

Our definition of consciousness is vague, at the least. Whatever it is, there is no evidence that it extends outside of our bodies. ... And none, of course, that says this is *not* so. But we are learning all the time. Perhaps this is one we can solve, in time? We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

Our definition of consciousness is NOT vague, consciousness is simply awareness. What makes the idea of consciousness vague is when we dispute what we are aware of; much like water is not vague, it is simply wet, but this wetness can be moisture, dew, rain, sweat, snow, sleet, a river, a lake, mud, a scummy pond, a soup, an ocean or lake, fresh water or salt water, etc.

Many people think of consciousness as thought that comes from the brain and rational aspect of mind -- they are wrong, wrong, wrong. Consciousness is much more than that.

Gee

[Gee]

Years ago I was reading about incubation periods for different diseases and learned that when the bacteria/virus reaches a certain concentration in a body, then they all "turn on" and the disease attacks the body. So being me, I asked the dumb question, "How do they know what the concentration is and when it is enough?" "They have no eyes, noses, ears, etc., so how do they know? Do they feel it?" Is this just another example of knowledge that is sensed? That would mean that it works outside of the body like the spiritual/emotional.

Perhaps they can sense each other by simple proximity? I don't know, of course, but that does seem possible, doesn't it?

How would all the water in your body start to boil at the same time when placed in extreme heat?

In the case of viruses, I assume that, as they multiply, they reach a certain threshold that changes in the body's internal chemistry (or maybe temperature, magnetic fields or whatever) until it reaches a point that will cause reactions in the viruses.

Yes, I think that's right.

Viruses are, by some definitions, not even alive. They cannot survive outside an organism. And they cannot even reproduce. For viral production to occur, a virus has to hack an infected cell in a way that makes the infected cell produce more virions because the viruses themselves cannot do it. The new virions produced by the infected cell then break out through the cell wall, often destroying the cell in the process. They then head off to find new cells to infect.

The cell destruction is partly what makes us sick. For example, the herpes virus destroys cells on our lips which creates the painful blisters we call cold sores. We can also feel ill because when the body recognizes invaders, viral or bacterial, it mounts a massive immune response to destroy them. This fight takes energy and causes our temperature to spike and makes us feel tired.

I found your last paragraph above very interesting. I already knew about viruses and how they reproduce, but I had no idea what caused the incubation period in diseases. When I read the underlined (my underlining) in your above paragraph, I began to wonder if the reaction of the body is what caused the bacteria/virus to "turn on" and attack. The vast majority of conscious awareness in life is reactionary just like instincts. This awareness works through the unconscious aspect of mind and we are not even slightly aware/conscious of it, but the body can recognize an invader and react, possibly causing a reciprocal reaction. It is an interesting thought.

Some viruses will turn on as soon as they enter a cell and make the cell produce more virus. Others viruses enter cells and can remain dormant for long periods. The herpes virus is an example. It can remain dormant until your immune system is a bit weak for some reason, and then it takes the opportunity to cause a cell to create new virions which then break out of cells and, in the process, cause cold sores.

I don’t think that viruses actually communicate and say, “Hey, guys, let’s do this”. However, it has been discovered that phages (viruses that attack bacteria) can, after the death of large numbers of bacteria, release viral proteins that somehow cause remaining phages to switch off and stop killing bacteria and to instead retreat and lie dormant in bacterial genomes. Cell death thus ceases until the phages “decide” to start causing bacterial cells to produce new phages which then go on to destroy other bacterial cells when they break out of the cell.

So there is some form of communication going on. But it is not conscious communication.

That would be why they call it the unconscious, or sometimes the subconscious. If you have never studied psychology and don't understand these differences, you would do well to look up Freud's divisions of mind. I know that science does not like his work, but he has the most comprehensive and easiest to understand explanations. He was also not the first as Plato was the first that I know of to recognize the divisions of mind. Freud's biggest mistake was when he tried to tie the divisions of mind to the brain -- the problem was much more complex than he guessed.

The easiest explanation is that what most people consider consciousness is a lot like RAM in a computer, it is random access to thought that can be manipulated and worked -- this is the rational aspect of mind. The unconscious aspect of mind is reactionary only, we do not really control it and some people suspect that it controls us. This aspect of mind is often referred to as the instinctive mind and is ruled by emotion.

I read another article that theorized that it was more likely that we are in consciousness, than consciousness is in us. If the spiritual and/or emotion works between and outside of us, then that would be compatible with the religious idea that "God" is everywhere.

Our definition of consciousness is vague, at the least. Whatever it is, there is no evidence that it extends outside of our bodies. ... And none, of course, that says this is *not* so. But we are learning all the time. Perhaps this is one we can solve, in time? We'll have to wait and see, won't we?

Right. Notions such as the "brain-as-antenna" and that we "tune-in" to consciousness cannot be disproved, and they can be used as support for Idealism or religion. But, so far, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support such notions.

There is lot of empirical evidence. When you are under anesthesia and have no awareness or consciousness as to what is happening to you, what do you think that is? That is an unplugged antenna. You are not dead. Your blood still needs to support your body. Your heart is aware of the need to keep pumping, your lungs still in need of breathing. Your body is still working and your unconscious aspect of mind is still regulating most or all of your bodily functions. If you had no consciousness at all, you would be dead!

Gee

[Gee]

Given what religion is, the assumption in this thread that it is in some way necessarily connected with Spirituality is false.

Religion can be understood as a system of beliefs and practices that bind individuals or communities to a higher power or moral code, guiding their actions and shaping their understanding of the world through repeated observance and devotion. So even where it does mention "spirit", the observance of religion is antithetical to spirituality.

Spirituality is personal and individual experience of seeking meaning, connection, and purpose in life, often in relation to something greater than oneself, but without adherence to a specific religious framework. THis by necessity has to avoid dogma and the institutionalisation of ideas. In essence, it’s a more flexible, often individualized pursuit of inner peace, personal growth, and a sense of transcendence, outside of traditional religious structures.

Only a true atheist can be free to persue spiritual understanding of the world.

All of the above is unprovable nonsense expressing your opinion, which is based on your assumptions -- which are invalid.

Gee

[Gee]

Given what religion is, the assumption in this thread that it is in some way necessarily connected with Spirituality is false.

Religion can be understood as a system of beliefs and practices that bind individuals or communities to a higher power or moral code, guiding their actions and shaping their understanding of the world through repeated observance and devotion. So even where it does mention "spirit", the observance of religion is antithetical to spirituality.

Spirituality is personal and individual experience of seeking meaning, connection, and purpose in life, often in relation to something greater than oneself, but without adherence to a specific religious framework. THis by necessity has to avoid dogma and the institutionalisation of ideas. In essence, it’s a more flexible, often individualized pursuit of inner peace, personal growth, and a sense of transcendence, outside of traditional religious structures.

Only a true atheist can be free to persue spiritual understanding of the world.

All of the above is unprovable nonsense expressing your opinion, which is based on your assumptions -- which are invalid.

Gee

[Lagayascienza]

Given what religion is, the assumption in this thread that it is in some way necessarily connected with Spirituality is false.

Religion can be understood as a system of beliefs and practices that bind individuals or communities to a higher power or moral code, guiding their actions and shaping their understanding of the world through repeated observance and devotion. So even where it does mention "spirit", the observance of religion is antithetical to spirituality.

Spirituality is personal and individual experience of seeking meaning, connection, and purpose in life, often in relation to something greater than oneself, but without adherence to a specific religious framework. THis by necessity has to avoid dogma and the institutionalisation of ideas. In essence, it’s a more flexible, often individualized pursuit of inner peace, personal growth, and a sense of transcendence, outside of traditional religious structures.

Only a true atheist can be free to persue spiritual understanding of the world.

No argument with that. If we have outgrown religion and still want to acknowledge/pursue our feel for the numinous, then the sort of spirituality mentioned in seems like the only option.

[Sy Borg]

Years ago I was reading about incubation periods for different diseases and learned that when the bacteria/virus reaches a certain concentration in a body, then they all "turn on" and the disease attacks the body. So being me, I asked the dumb question, "How do they know what the concentration is and when it is enough?" "They have no eyes, noses, ears, etc., so how do they know? Do they feel it?" Is this just another example of knowledge that is sensed? That would mean that it works outside of the body like the spiritual/emotional.

Perhaps they can sense each other by simple proximity? I don't know, of course, but that does seem possible, doesn't it?

So you are saying that they "sense" each other without the benefit of their five senses -- sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Does that mean that they would be using their sixth sense? Awareness? Come to think of it, all the senses work outside and between bodies. We see something that is outside of ourselves, hear something other then ourselves, smell something that is outside of us (or under our arm pits) taste something other than ourselves and touch something. It should not be so surprising to learn that awareness also works outside of ourselves. The sixth sense that causes awareness is felt.

I've heard of microbes that form certain configurations but, when the numbers reach a certain density (ie. they become crowded enough), they release a chemical that gets them to change the configuration.

AI tells me that this is called quorum sensing:

Mechanism of Quorum Sensing

Signaling Molecules: Microbes produce and release specific chemical signals known as autoinducers ...

Detection of Density: As the microbial population grows, the concentration of these signaling molecules increases. Once the density of microbes reaches a critical threshold, the accumulated autoinducers bind to specific receptors on the surface or inside the bacterial cells.

Response Activation: The binding of autoinducers to their receptors activates signal transduction pathways that lead to changes in gene expression. This can result in various collective behaviors such as biofilm formation, virulence factor production, bioluminescence, sporulation, and motility.

Examples of Quorum Sensing Systems:
- In Vibrio fischeri, a well-studied model organism, quorum sensing controls bioluminescence. At low cell densities, light production is minimal; however, once a sufficient number of cells are present, they produce light as a group.

- In Pseudomonas aeruginosa, quorum sensing regulates virulence factors that contribute to its pathogenicity during infections.

[Sculptor1]

Given what religion is, the assumption in this thread that it is in some way necessarily connected with Spirituality is false.

Religion can be understood as a system of beliefs and practices that bind individuals or communities to a higher power or moral code, guiding their actions and shaping their understanding of the world through repeated observance and devotion. So even where it does mention "spirit", the observance of religion is antithetical to spirituality.

Spirituality is personal and individual experience of seeking meaning, connection, and purpose in life, often in relation to something greater than oneself, but without adherence to a specific religious framework. THis by necessity has to avoid dogma and the institutionalisation of ideas. In essence, it’s a more flexible, often individualized pursuit of inner peace, personal growth, and a sense of transcendence, outside of traditional religious structures.

Only a true atheist can be free to persue spiritual understanding of the world.

No argument with that. If we have outgrown religion and still want to acknowledge/pursue our feel for the numinous, then the sort of spirituality mentioned in seems like the only option.

Thanks you.
But according to Gee; "All of the above is unprovable nonsense expressing your opinion, which is based on your assumptions -- which are invalid."
I think that is not only wrong but rude too.