twistor59 wrote:I learned a new word anyway: neurotheology

ackmanben wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

campermon wrote:Has this turned into a beer drinking thread yet?

I am sympathetic to your question. By sympathetic, I of course refer to that assumption embodied in the directive of the famed Golden Rule; and by assumption, I of course refer to that unspoken minor premise of social intercourse, namely; that others are essentially and fundamentally like ourselves. The Golden Rule, therefore, reflects a reasonably premised conceit that our essential similarity means we would all, and indeed do, want to be treated similarly in similar circumstances. However, as we know from our previous discussions with the dreaded panpsychists, not to mention those others who earnestly cling to similar vaporous incongruities, that such an assumed essential similarity implies a singular and absolute reality, and that such thinking may, if given full reign, eventually lead us either towards the horror of solipsism or the ignominy of ethnocentricism. By this we might see that the small portion of wisdom encapsulated in The Golden Rule, though affording us a little confidence in our wanton navigations through the maelstrøm social exchange, can act to limit both our thinking and action with regards to others. If we are to forego the mere acceptance of bland assumption--that we are all essentially similar--and acknowledge a far more practical one--that we are all essentially different--then we may overcome the limitations of sympathy and develop a new strategy of communication. This we may, and indeed do, call empathy, and it consists not in the mere mutually dispensed sentimentalism of sympathy but in deliberately imagining an experience of the world from another's point of view. Only by this can we truly achieve an insight into the situation and concerns of others to facilitate communications which positively encourage inter-personal sensitivity to the needs of others. By this token I return to the issue at hand and hope you will recognise both the sincerity and seriousness with which I have attended to your question such that you may take a little strength from my general eagerness to deal with these important matters head on, with honesty and appropriate haste.

In other words; Yes, I think this may have turned into a beer drinking thread, as evidenced by the posts above.

Thank you, I appreciate your humility, unlike the incessant arrogance I normally see on this forum.

THWOTH wrote: We may as well be discussion 'Irascibility and Brownian Motion' as far as I can see.

ackmanben wrote:Are there electrons around an atom inside a neuron that fires action potentials (electrical impulses)? Does empathy only work with te act of observation?

ackmanben wrote:Fair enough. What about the electromagnetic field? Could it somehow be of influence, like with telepathy? I remember watching Through the wormhole and doing some reading on a scientist using electromagnetic helmets to study telepathy between two individuals in a controlled setting. It was very interesting, has anybody heard of it?

THWOTH wrote:With regards to the topic, empathy arises in deliberately imagining an experience of the world from another's point of view. It is in employing our natural, innate, evolved capacities for imagination and forward planning that we gain real insight into the circumstances and experience of others empathetically.