Well, returning to the (somewhat silly) ideas presented in the following articles:
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982 http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/confused-science-writer-claims-that-atheists-might-not-exist/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/evolutionary_st088461.html the point is to find a non-self-reported biomarker for the belief in unexplained phenomena. The ideas of "invisible friends", internal monologues, feelings of interconnectedness or "higher powers", could easily be caused by biochemical or neuronal mechanisms. And the behavior they manifest could be much broader than talking about god or thanking god. Marcus' proposal is for _finding_ the correlates to come up with a functional neuronal biomarker, which might include binding patters across the entire cortex (eg eeg), which I'd prefer. But if we did do one based on behavior, it could be much broader than just references to gods or particular types of god. A good example popped up just today: Drug Unlocks Malleable, Fast-Learning, Child-LIke State In Adult Brain http://www.neomatica.com/2014/11/04/drug-unlocks-malleable-fast-learning-child-like-state-adult-brain/?utm_content=buffer7f0b7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer "Professor Carla Shatz of Stanford University and her colleagues have discovered a way to revert an adult brain to the “plastic”, child-like state that is more able to form new connections quickly. The technical term “plastic” implies the ability to adapt or shape itself to new conditions. The striking results were revealed through experiments on a protein expressed in brain cells known as PirB (this is the name of the protein in the animal model, in humans it is called “LilrB2″), which seems to stabilize neural connections." Many spiritual pagan types include psychoactive drugs as part of their religious practice. And many people cite particular drugs as having helped them commune with various deities, including "nature". And it's relatively common for atheists to claim that part of what makes them an atheist is their ability to (or desire to) change their opinions when presented with new evidence... a kind of neural plasticity. Aside from the biomarkers (proteins or neural patterns), we could design behavioral studies to test for, say, the tendency to talk to yourself (talk to your invisible friends). Or the tendency to refer to others' feelings. "Systems thinking atheists" might well be more theistic than their more reductionist counterparts. Etc. Tests for the following would be interesting: http://www.inquisitr.com/1692212/atheists-rewrite-ten-commandments-mythbusters-adam-savage-judged-new-commands/ > 1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence. > 2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what > you wish to be true. > 3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the > natural world. > 4. Every person has the right to control over their body. > 5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful > life. > 6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you > must take responsibility for them. > 7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably > expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective. > 8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future > generations. > 9. There is no one right way to live. > 10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. p.s. I'm still not receiving Nick's posts. Had to get the quoted content from the archive. Circa Sun Dec 21 12:32:00 EST 2014 Nick wrote: > I think what Steve (and perhaps others) have sunk their teeth into here is > not whether such research is possible, or even whether it is interesting, if > what one seeks is an understanding of how the brain works; they are (I am?) > wondering in what sense this constitutes a diagnosis of atheism. What is > the validator here, and against what is it validated. I think theism (or > atheism) are lodged in higher order patterns of behavior. So the state of > being an atheist cannot be "diagnosed" EITHER by identifying a particular > neuron OR by asking a person, but only by a careful - ethological, if you > will - long-term study of that person's behavior. When that study is done on > many people, I suspect, you will find a very complex multi dimensional > pattern of variation . a family ressemblence, if you will, among people with > respect to the notion of a personal god. > > > > I have a friend who is currently living a heroic life while being battered > by one circumstance after another, pretty much out of her control. I found > myself writing to her, "I pray that you have a better year." Now, I think > I am as atheist as one can get in a person who does not see himself a > professing or promulgating atheism. Neither of my parents had much interest > in God. However, I did find myself saying, as if to the air, "Oh God, I > somebody could give Joan a break, this year, just a little break." And I > do that sort of thing, a few times a day. > > > > I think that disqualifies me, behaviorally, as an pure atheist, no matter > what I might say to you, if you asked me, "Nick, do you believe in God?", > and no matter what you might find going on in your proposed nucleus > cruciformis. On 12/20/2014 07:21 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > From self-reports, classify a lot of people as being [a]theist. Randomly > select half of the people to be used to generate hypotheses, by putting > sensors on neurons in the prefrontal cortex and ask questions that would > select for consensus builders vs. breakers, [in]tolerance, [anti-] > authoritarianism, and any other personality traits one could imagine to > separate personalities preferring [a]theism. Like Hubel and Wiesel did > with the visual cortex in cats. If some discriminating neurons are found for > certain survey questions, and they are repeated across subjects, then go to > the other half of people and measure at what rate the various sorts of > neurons can be found in the other half (but don’t look at their survey > questions before measuring!). Then tabulate the neuron type frequencies > vs. the survey questions and see if the neutron type are frequencies are > predictive of [a]theism. > > > > One might posit that extreme skepticism takes a toll on imagination and/or > motivation, e.g. big networks of neurons that serve to kill “bad” signals. > Or maybe the opposite is true and only people that play Devil’s Advocate to > the bitter end can integrate enough perspectives to be truly creative? > > > > Surely someone has at least suggested doing experiments like this? Or > maybe the answer is already well-known? (I did not do any searches.) -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella From the book, the word is spoken ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
