Ch. 3: Conviction Isn't a Choice

Chris OConnor · Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:41 pm

Ch. 3: Conviction Isn't a Choice

Please use this thread for discussing Ch. 3: Conviction Isn't a Choice. :biker:

JulianTheApostate · Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:05 pm

I drank a glass of wine before reading this chapter. It's unusual for me to drink before reading, but it coincidentally ended up quite appropriate when Burton started discussing the way people can gain mystical insights while under the influence of drugs.

The following statement amused me, but it may have been the wine.


	Quote: It is easy to recognize a scared rat, but a rodent's sense of alienation is less obvious.

His discuss of the feeling of knowledge without actual knowledge, in the context of mystical experiences and people with brain injuries, was pretty interesting.

Here are the Wikipedia definitions of some terms Burton mentioned that I wasn't familiar with.

Jamais vu


	Quote: In psychology, the term jamais vu (from the French, meaning "never seen") is used to describe any familiar situation which is not recognized by the observer.

Deja vecu


	Quote: Deja vecu refers to an experience involving more than just sight, which is why labeling it as "deja vu" is usually inaccurate. The sense involves a great amount of detail, sensing that everything is just as it was before and a weird knowledge of what is going to be said or happen next.

Grim · Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:01 pm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conviction - conviction is is one of those very broad term and links to many aspects of our cognative functioning. I hope I can stay topical on this one.

Interesting notion that you are convinced of things beyond your choosing.

DWill · Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:12 am


	Grim wrote: conviction is is one of those very broad term and links to many aspects of our cognative functioning.

I had some difficulty, too, justifying the chapter title by the evidence he gives us for the neurological basis of convction. Conviction seems to me to be so much more than what is evidenced by the brain stimulation that Burton reports. What we commonly think of as conviction seems to involve so many influences "up the line" from the supposed origin in an area of the brain, that it's hard for me to believe that conviction is "nothing more" than a sensation. Science tries to explain complex things by showing how they are made up of fundamental components. This works well much of the time, but I don't know about in this case.

I still give Burton a lot of credit for handling this subject, and maybe I'll understand him better as I go on. The part on neurotheology is interesting, especially in terms of the interests of many at booktalk. The conclusion I might draw is that in many individuals, the "God part" of the brain is more active or prominent than in some others; or that social influences have either enhanced or dampened this aspect of the brain. It makes sense to me that any characteristic would be variably expressed across the population.

It's also notable that the area of the brain Burton says is responsible for our having mystical experiences is the lower, or evolutionarily earlier, part, mainly the limbic system. I suppose I had assumed that our superior cortex would somehow enable us to have these experiences, and that therefore these states would be known in humans but not in other animals. Now, I wonder. What does a lizard experience as it sits on a rock in the sun? What does my old dog perceive in the same setting? Do other animals normally feel a sense of oneness with the universe, whereas for us this is an exceptional achievement?
DWill

Raving Lunatic · Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:37 pm

I found this chapter easier to read and a little more interesting to read. Getting better all the time.

Saffron · Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:10 pm

page 23
This sentence is a quote from William James:
"Mystical truth . . . resembles the knowledge given to us in sensations more than that given by conceptual thought"

I love this! It possibly sheds light on the many cultures throughout time that have created rituals based on reaching the spiritual through the body. And why sex can be for some a spiritual experience.

DWill · Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:28 pm


	Saffron wrote: page 23 This sentence is a quote from William James: "Mystical truth . . . resembles the knowledge given to us in sensations more than that given by conceptual thought" I love this! It possibly sheds light on the many cultures throughout time that have created rituals based on reaching the spiritual through the body. And why sex can be for some a spiritual experience.

And the feeling of knowing is a sensation, explaining partly why we give it more heed than a mere concept that doesn't come to us with the same satisfying punch.

What do you think about the possibility of other animals ("lower" ones) experiencing mystical states, but without the same consciousness of them that we have? Does our cortex separate us from these states typically, while animals not so encumbered are always attuned?
DWill

Saffron · Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:50 pm

DWill:


	Quote: What do you think about the possibility of other animals ("lower" ones) experiencing mystical states, but without the same consciousness of them that we have? Does our cortex separate us from these states typically, while animals not so encumbered are always attuned?

I read a post of yours that you made ealier on the thread for On Being Certain with this idea and I've been thinking about it ever since. I think other Mammals must experience emotions (they have the brain equipment). It seems that it's possible the higher order mammals do experience what we would call a mystical state. Cats curled up or spralled out sleeping sure do look blissed out.

Saffron · Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:02 am

As I read through the last part of Chapter 3 (p.33-4) I kept thinking that the description Burton gives of brains being stimulated to experience a sense of knowing, familiarity and realness is very similar to what I've read about simulating other sensation with electrical stimulation, such as taste, with electrical stimulation of the brain. It seems useful to me in trying to get my mind around Burton's point, to substitute something as concrete as our sense of taste. No one would deny that we really do taste things. Just because we can trick the brain into thinking it is tasting when in reality nothing is stimulating the tongue does not in anyway negate tasting. What studies, like the one sited below, do is reveal the neurological apparatus that allow us to taste when something is on our tongue. Could it be the same with the sense of knowing, familiarity and realness?


	Quote: Temporal Coding of Sensation: Mimicking Taste Quality With Electrical Stimulation of the Brain. Di Lorenzo, Patricia M.; Hallock, Robert M.; Kennedy, Daniel P.

DWill · Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:42 am

You'll be proud of me--I actually did go to the article you cited. But it was only an abstract, and it might be just as well, because I was hoping the research reported on how humans reacted to such brain stimulation, but it was rats (rats). I was curious as to what a person might say about tasting under brain stimulation. Would he/she report some default taste of something particular, in the absence of a substance? Or maybe that area of the brain doesn't work that way. Oh well. Burton does seems to be claiming that knowing, familiarity, realness is a sense almost on a par with the big five.

DWill · Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:42 am

I ran across a sentence in Andrew Bacevich's book, The Limits of Power, that then made me think of this chapter in Burton's book. Bacevich: "Conviction follows self-interest." Burton, I feel, may err in using the word conviction to refer to a simple feeling of knowing, which, he says, is not under our conscious control. Conviction, as we commonly use the word, is not a matter of a simple sensation, but is rather more complex. If it is influenced by genetics or biology, that is one thing, but it is certainly not beyond our control and is a choice, I believe. Bacevich is right, we will typically profess convictions that mirror our self-interests. For example, if we want to ensure a supply of oil for our economy, we
express the conviction that Middle Eastern countries must be shown the way to democracy. Although I accept Burton's view on the limitations of our rationality, I think that we are capable of knowing our minds well enough to identify when self-interest is influencing our convictions and beliefs.

Forum rules

Ch. 3: Conviction Isn't a Choice Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!