http://ift.tt/1t1JBub
This is a talk by Dr. Daniel Dennett, "What should replace religion?" about, essentially, taking what's good out of religion, finding a secular analog, and tossing out the rest.
I agree with much of what Dennett outlines, especially in concept, but I've been working on this same notion from an entirely different approach over the past decade or so.
Where Dennett is looking at the social structures that can be taken from it, I've been looking at the neurological exercises that can be taken from it.
The way of looking at is to pretend for a moment that religion somehow was everything that it is and the way people engaged in exercise and worship with religion was through physical workouts and weight lifting.
We could look at the physical exercises they are doing and see which ones produce a beneficial return. Then we could determine if there was already a secular analog to that religious physical exercise.
If there wasn't, then we could examine how that religious physical exercise works and how to employ it in a secular model; as just a physical exercise that's good because it's simply good exercise for the body.
Now go back through that same paragraph and replace physical exercise with neurological exercise.
"Neurotheology" (for this discussion, it doesn't matter if we like the name or not [but I do think it should be a discussion]) is a field of Neurology which attempts to study what happens in the brain while religious practitioners do various actions related to their religious practice (e.g. scanning the brains of Tibetan monks during meditation).
Dr. Andrew Newberg is a prominent figure of this field.
http://ift.tt/1t1JBKt
This talk doesn't cover specific examples as much as it discusses the general field and its definition in operation, but it's a good introduction.
For specific detailed case examinations, you could start by looking up Newberg's body of work and then start branching out from there.
There is a wealth of work on the subject, but it is only just beginning to unify the field so that it is easier to conceive of the studies collectively as well as categorize them collectively (like having a field of physics without that name or concept of that study being collectively described, but some various studies of those types taking place anyway).
What follows (which I posted in a different thread somewhat, but mostly for a different discussion) is my etymological and conception work so far.
Effectively, I admire the work of Newberg and of 'Neurotheology', but one thing I have noticed extensively in reading through the work of this relatively new field is that there is an entire lacking of a language to use to discuss what is being examined and measured.
Very ill-defined, or subjectively biased, terms are employed such as, "spiritual".
For instance, take this abstract:
It's clear from this abstract that there is considerable difficulty for the writer to find terms to describe what exactly is being examined.
The term, "spiritual" is so vague and non-clinical of a term that it renders the statement, "Perceived spirituality also was assessed", not defined.
Equally, "...and spirituality measures." struggles to find a way to convey what's being measured.
Further, these kinds of vague terms picked up from "layman" language fail to convey a description of what is taking place, how it is taking place, in what setting it is taking place, in what frequency does it take place and in what amplitude of intensity does it take place; let alone what is being (vaguely) "measured".
What follows is an outline of language on this subject in which I currently have arrived at.
The point of discussion in this thread is the concept of neurological exercises and whether they can be, or should be, quantified in like fashion to Dr. Daniel Dennett's considerations of social constructs.
Are there constructs occurring which have a unique nature to them in which can be quantified and leveraged in secular fashion?
Do mental constructs influence the neurological exercise?
Does it matter what we conceive while performing neurological exercises, or is it simply the neurological exercise which produces the benefit alone?
Is the last question a false dichotomy?
Are there secular correlatives to religious proanisotropics already?
Is there any gain to these neurological exercises (is it like doing puzzles; just good exercise)?
----
Alright...let it rip! :)
This is a talk by Dr. Daniel Dennett, "What should replace religion?" about, essentially, taking what's good out of religion, finding a secular analog, and tossing out the rest.
I agree with much of what Dennett outlines, especially in concept, but I've been working on this same notion from an entirely different approach over the past decade or so.
Where Dennett is looking at the social structures that can be taken from it, I've been looking at the neurological exercises that can be taken from it.
The way of looking at is to pretend for a moment that religion somehow was everything that it is and the way people engaged in exercise and worship with religion was through physical workouts and weight lifting.
We could look at the physical exercises they are doing and see which ones produce a beneficial return. Then we could determine if there was already a secular analog to that religious physical exercise.
If there wasn't, then we could examine how that religious physical exercise works and how to employ it in a secular model; as just a physical exercise that's good because it's simply good exercise for the body.
Now go back through that same paragraph and replace physical exercise with neurological exercise.
"Neurotheology" (for this discussion, it doesn't matter if we like the name or not [but I do think it should be a discussion]) is a field of Neurology which attempts to study what happens in the brain while religious practitioners do various actions related to their religious practice (e.g. scanning the brains of Tibetan monks during meditation).
Dr. Andrew Newberg is a prominent figure of this field.
http://ift.tt/1t1JBKt
This talk doesn't cover specific examples as much as it discusses the general field and its definition in operation, but it's a good introduction.
For specific detailed case examinations, you could start by looking up Newberg's body of work and then start branching out from there.
There is a wealth of work on the subject, but it is only just beginning to unify the field so that it is easier to conceive of the studies collectively as well as categorize them collectively (like having a field of physics without that name or concept of that study being collectively described, but some various studies of those types taking place anyway).
What follows (which I posted in a different thread somewhat, but mostly for a different discussion) is my etymological and conception work so far.
Effectively, I admire the work of Newberg and of 'Neurotheology', but one thing I have noticed extensively in reading through the work of this relatively new field is that there is an entire lacking of a language to use to discuss what is being examined and measured.
Very ill-defined, or subjectively biased, terms are employed such as, "spiritual".
For instance, take this abstract:
Quote:
Background: This study assesses changes in mood and anxiety in a cohort of subjects with memory loss who participated in an 8-week Kirtan Kriya meditation program. Perceived spirituality also was assessed. Previous reports from this cohort showed changes in cognitive function and cerebral blood flow (CBF). The purpose of this analysis was to assess outcome measures of mood and affect, and also spirituality, and to determine whether or not results correlated with changes in CBF. Methods: Fifteen (15) subjects (mean age 62 – 7 years) with memory problems were enrolled in an 8-week meditation program. Before and after the 8-week meditation, subjects were given a battery of neuropsychologic tests as well as measures of mood, anxiety, and spirituality. In addition, they underwent single photon emission computed tomography scans before and after the program. A region-of-interest template obtained counts in several brain structures that could also be compared to the results from the affect and spirituality measures. |
It's clear from this abstract that there is considerable difficulty for the writer to find terms to describe what exactly is being examined.
The term, "spiritual" is so vague and non-clinical of a term that it renders the statement, "Perceived spirituality also was assessed", not defined.
Equally, "...and spirituality measures." struggles to find a way to convey what's being measured.
Further, these kinds of vague terms picked up from "layman" language fail to convey a description of what is taking place, how it is taking place, in what setting it is taking place, in what frequency does it take place and in what amplitude of intensity does it take place; let alone what is being (vaguely) "measured".
What follows is an outline of language on this subject in which I currently have arrived at.
The point of discussion in this thread is the concept of neurological exercises and whether they can be, or should be, quantified in like fashion to Dr. Daniel Dennett's considerations of social constructs.
Are there constructs occurring which have a unique nature to them in which can be quantified and leveraged in secular fashion?
Do mental constructs influence the neurological exercise?
Does it matter what we conceive while performing neurological exercises, or is it simply the neurological exercise which produces the benefit alone?
Is the last question a false dichotomy?
Are there secular correlatives to religious proanisotropics already?
Is there any gain to these neurological exercises (is it like doing puzzles; just good exercise)?
----
Alright...let it rip! :)
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1qGWbiD
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire