Fact and Fiction

[slave2six]

From The Mind's Past (Michael Gazzaniga - Neuroscientist)

"There is a special device in the left brain, which I call the interpreter, that carries out one more activity upon completion of zillions of automatic brain processes. the interpreter, the last device in the information chain in our brain, reconstructs the brain events and in doing so makes telling errors of perception, memory, and judgment. The clue to how we are built is buried not just in our marvelously robust capacity for these functions, but also in the errors that are frequently made by reconstruction. Biography is fiction. Autobiography is hopelessly inventive."
​

The facts of neuroscience shed light on the human brain and, in the book from which this quote is taken, there is hard evidence to support the fact that our brains reconstruct event based on individual perceptions, memory, and judgments.

The conclusion that "Biography is fiction-Autobiography is hopelessly inventive" begs the question; why would anyone who knows that this is how the human brain operates put any faith in Scriptures that were written when superstition was accepted as "truth" or "reality"? How is it possible that thousands-of-years-old writings which were written by hyper-superstitious people has any validity or basis in reality?

More to the point, Id like any religious people to give me even one good reason that a rational person should take any of your religious writings seriously.

 

[Riverwolf]

From The Mind's Past (Michael Gazzaniga - Neuroscientist)

"There is a special device in the left brain, which I call the interpreter, that carries out one more activity upon completion of zillions of automatic brain processes. the interpreter, the last device in the information chain in our brain, reconstructs the brain events and in doing so makes telling errors of perception, memory, and judgment. The clue to how we are built is buried not just in our marvelously robust capacity for these functions, but also in the errors that are frequently made by reconstruction. Biography is fiction. Autobiography is hopelessly inventive."
​

The facts of neuroscience shed light on the human brain and, in the book from which this quote is taken, there is hard evidence to support the fact that our brains reconstruct event based on individual perceptions, memory, and judgments.

The conclusion that "Biography is fiction-Autobiography is hopelessly inventive" begs the question; why would anyone who knows that this is how the human brain operates put any faith in Scriptures that were written when superstition was accepted as "truth" or "reality"? How is it possible that thousands-of-years-old writings which were written by hyper-superstitious people has any validity or basis in reality?

More to the point, Id like any religious people to give me even one good reason that a rational person should take any of your religious writings seriously.

How about this?

Sages have been saying exactly this kind of thing, that the human mind tricks us, and our sense perceptions are unreliable for learning the truth, for thousands of years. What they wrote is not an exact replica of what they experience(that's not possible, and Sages have said as much), but either an approximation using the limited abilities of the language of the time, such as the teachings of Jesus, or teach the way by which this experience may be reached, such as the Eightfold Path taught by the Buddha.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm surprised you seem unaware that Buddhism has been in agreement with the OP for thousands of years.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

I'm surprised you seem unaware that Buddhism has been in agreement with the OP for thousands of years.

Yes, that is only recorded history not to forget their were many buddhas before Gautama and no records available in writing.

Love & rgds

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm surprised you seem unaware that Buddhism has been in agreement with the OP for thousands of years.

Hindu Sages knew it, too.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Riverwolf,

Hindu Sages knew it, too.

Buddhas are not specific to any religion.

Love & rgds

 

[Riverwolf]

Friend Riverwolf,



Buddhas are not specific to any religion.

Love & rgds

I know that, but most people make a (somewhat false) distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[Archer]

We, today in the modern world, are limited in memory and generational wisdom. In some countries, even Israel the entire holy work can be quoted word for word. Do not cast doubt on what is not understood just read it and perhaps you will be lead to the truth.

 

[footprints]

From The Mind's Past (Michael Gazzaniga - Neuroscientist)

"There is a special device in the left brain, which I call the interpreter, that carries out one more activity upon completion of zillions of automatic brain processes. the interpreter, the last device in the information chain in our brain, reconstructs the brain events and in doing so makes telling errors of perception, memory, and judgment. The clue to how we are built is buried not just in our marvelously robust capacity for these functions, but also in the errors that are frequently made by reconstruction. Biography is fiction. Autobiography is hopelessly inventive."
​

The facts of neuroscience shed light on the human brain and, in the book from which this quote is taken, there is hard evidence to support the fact that our brains reconstruct event based on individual perceptions, memory, and judgments.

The conclusion that "Biography is fiction-Autobiography is hopelessly inventive" begs the question; why would anyone who knows that this is how the human brain operates put any faith in Scriptures that were written when superstition was accepted as "truth" or "reality"? How is it possible that thousands-of-years-old writings which were written by hyper-superstitious people has any validity or basis in reality?

More to the point, Id like any religious people to give me even one good reason that a rational person should take any of your religious writings seriously.

LOL this doesn't just apply to the religious slave, it applies to you as well. Great job of proving Gazzaniga right, just by reconstructing your own events complete with the error in it of why would anyone who knows how the brain works put any faith in scriptures, when what you really should have said is why would anybody really trust what their own brain tells them particularly about themselves and any observations which they may make.

Even with the evidence right in front of you, you did exactly what the evidence said you would do. That though is human intelligence for you. I have been trying to show some others this same thing, that they cannot trust their own observation that their own beliefs (perceptions) will get in the way and interfere with their judgement. They though are way to intelligent for me, they think I am talking rubbish. I just love human intelligence, it is so stupid sometimes.

Have a great new year.

 

[footprints]

I'm surprised you seem unaware that Buddhism has been in agreement with the OP for thousands of years.

Not the only ones though Sunstone, the same philosophy is in Hinduism (Where Buddha learned it all), Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism et al and many ancient cultures which go back tens of thousands of years.

The good news is modern science is eventually catching up.

Have a happy and safe new year.

 

[Cobblestones]

LOL this doesn't just apply to the religious slave, it applies to you as well. Great job of proving Gazzaniga right, just by reconstructing your own.

That's funny. Then again, it really begs the question if anything can be known. If the answer is "no" then why is there so much effort put into finding it?

 

[DeepShadow]

From The Mind's Past (Michael Gazzaniga - Neuroscientist)

"There is a special device in the left brain, which I call the interpreter, that carries out one more activity upon completion of zillions of automatic brain processes. the interpreter, the last device in the information chain in our brain, reconstructs the brain events and in doing so makes telling errors of perception, memory, and judgment. The clue to how we are built is buried not just in our marvelously robust capacity for these functions, but also in the errors that are frequently made by reconstruction. Biography is fiction. Autobiography is hopelessly inventive."
​

The facts of neuroscience shed light on the human brain and, in the book from which this quote is taken, there is hard evidence to support the fact that our brains reconstruct event based on individual perceptions, memory, and judgments.

The conclusion that "Biography is fiction-Autobiography is hopelessly inventive" begs the question; why would anyone who knows that this is how the human brain operates put any faith in Scriptures that were written when superstition was accepted as "truth" or "reality"? How is it possible that thousands-of-years-old writings which were written by hyper-superstitious people has any validity or basis in reality?

More to the point, Id like any religious people to give me even one good reason that a rational person should take any of your religious writings seriously.

To answer your question, note how Dr. Gazzaniga says biography is fiction. Does he say fiction is worthless? On the contrary, if you read the rest of his book, you'll see how this applies to everything stored in LTM--which is anything that is known longer than 30 seconds. Do you regard your memories of yesterday as worthless, just because they are fiction?

As others have pointed out, this is not new. The interpreter that he speaks of is a new discovery, but cognitive science has been studying this phenomenon for several decades, before which it was the province of gestalt psych going back about a century...and before that, it was the province of religion. We've been studing the pattern of pounded nails as part of religious thought since...forever. You want us to react because he's found the hammer?

 

[footprints]

From The Mind's Past (Michael Gazzaniga - Neuroscientist)

"There is a special device in the left brain, which I call the interpreter, that carries out one more activity upon completion of zillions of automatic brain processes. the interpreter, the last device in the information chain in our brain, reconstructs the brain events and in doing so makes telling errors of perception, memory, and judgment. The clue to how we are built is buried not just in our marvelously robust capacity for these functions, but also in the errors that are frequently made by reconstruction. Biography is fiction. Autobiography is hopelessly inventive."
​

The facts of neuroscience shed light on the human brain and, in the book from which this quote is taken, there is hard evidence to support the fact that our brains reconstruct event based on individual perceptions, memory, and judgments.

The conclusion that "Biography is fiction-Autobiography is hopelessly inventive" begs the question; why would anyone who knows that this is how the human brain operates put any faith in Scriptures that were written when superstition was accepted as "truth" or "reality"? How is it possible that thousands-of-years-old writings which were written by hyper-superstitious people has any validity or basis in reality?

More to the point, Id like any religious people to give me even one good reason that a rational person should take any of your religious writings seriously.

What you have to realise is, Gazzaniga is prone to human perception too, and so are you, as is everybody else on the planet.

What it really says is, you really cannot put faith into anything, not science, not religion, not anything. What you believe is true today, maybe completely false tomorrow. Yet here you are, putting your faith into it.

I do sometimes wonder why colleagues and peers write books, lay people just don't understand them or take any notice or value from them. For most part they only ever see it applying to other people, and not themselves.

 

[footprints]

That's funny. Then again, it really begs the question if anything can be known. If the answer is "no" then why is there so much effort put into finding it?

That is what Gazzaniga is saying, don't have faith in anything. Accept it loosly, don't bind to it, understand that those who oppose you may be right and it may be you who is wrong, irrespective of how much evidence tends to supports it. Lean one way, but be a willow and not an oak. Remain objective and don't become subjective.

It is the human flaw in scientific method. We are governed by our own perceptions, and cannot escape them, as they are written into every thought we have as they pertain to a specific subject. The more prejudice and bias a person has on the subject base, the more this will influence the outcome in the direction of their own peception.

 

[DeepShadow]

That is what Gazzaniga is saying, don't have faith in anything.

No, that's what the OP is saying, and using Dr. Gazzaniga to back it up by taking him out of context.

 

[Erebus]

From The Mind's Past (Michael Gazzaniga - Neuroscientist)

"There is a special device in the left brain, which I call the interpreter, that carries out one more activity upon completion of zillions of automatic brain processes. the interpreter, the last device in the information chain in our brain, reconstructs the brain events and in doing so makes telling errors of perception, memory, and judgment. The clue to how we are built is buried not just in our marvelously robust capacity for these functions, but also in the errors that are frequently made by reconstruction. Biography is fiction. Autobiography is hopelessly inventive."
​

The facts of neuroscience shed light on the human brain and, in the book from which this quote is taken, there is hard evidence to support the fact that our brains reconstruct event based on individual perceptions, memory, and judgments.

The conclusion that "Biography is fiction-Autobiography is hopelessly inventive" begs the question; why would anyone who knows that this is how the human brain operates put any faith in Scriptures that were written when superstition was accepted as "truth" or "reality"? How is it possible that thousands-of-years-old writings which were written by hyper-superstitious people has any validity or basis in reality?

More to the point, Id like any religious people to give me even one good reason that a rational person should take any of your religious writings seriously.

This is a good point.

After all, religion is essentially what you get when fallible humans with an inevitably flawed perception try to tell you what the "truth" is.

Science on the other hand is what you get when fallible humans with an inevitably flawed perception try to tell you... oh right.


In all seriousness though, I tend to accept scientific scripture more than religious scripture simply because it's what makes the most sense to me. I suppose this is the reason some people prefer religious scripture instead?
As for my own religious writings, I wouldn't expect a rational person to accept them. They require a pretty abstract point of view which goes against the majority opinion on what counts as rational.

 

[Mr Cheese]

More to the point, Id like any religious people to give me even one good reason that a rational person should take any of your religious writings seriously.

there is none

“Unknowingly we voyage in a labyrinth, a macrodimensional maze of
living electrical force, cloaked by a thick layer of ordinary life.
Our most serious obstacle is the uncontrollable urge to convert
everything to the familiar, to reduce it all to the level of the
primate brain; to reject the living, breathing reality of the
totality of all possible attention.”

- E.J. Gold

 

[AxisMundi]

We, today in the modern world, are limited in memory and generational wisdom. In some countries, even Israel the entire holy work can be quoted word for word. Do not cast doubt on what is not understood just read it and perhaps you will be lead to the truth.

Sorry, but a book that has the history of the Universe and Earth completely bullocks, claims there is enough water on the planet for a WWF and that millions of animals can fit aboard a wooden craft, and that the entire human race issued from two people simply has no credibility.

"We of the modern world" simply lack the capacity for superstition and the beliefs of myths to take them at face value.