Brain Differences Found Between in Believers in God and Non-Believers
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Again, quite cynical. Yes, some in history have been that way. But what benefit do I get from claiming that god says killing is wrong? How am I "trying to control other men." What's the purpose then?
Err....except of course history if full of examples where that morale code existed and yet the religion that was pushing it ALSO accept that it was completely ok to kill people for a vast number of things and in a vast number of ways. The fact that you do not attempt to control other people doesn't mean that others are not using it to control people. Matter of fact anyone with even a some knowledge of history and current events would be hard pressed to claim that there are many people being 'controlled'. As one example the Catholic church specifically forbids birth control. For that church it isn't a matter of the people making that decision but rather the church itself - specifically the Pope and bishops. Not sure how anyone could claim that wasn't control and that religiion wasn't specifically doing it. And noting of course that per the basis of that religion if you do not follow the edicts of the Pope then you are not a Catholic.
ryanb31 wrote:
Where do morals come from then?
Kidding right? Same place the US Constitution came from. Same place the Euro came from. Same place the banning of teaching women comes from.
Quote:
The fact that you do not attempt to control other people doesn't mean that others are not using it to control people.
Yes, agreed and already stated.
Quote:
As one example the Catholic church specifically forbids birth control.
But they also forbid murder, right? And aren't you OK with that one? They also forbid stealing, which I can imagine you agree with. So, doesn't that say you agree with them controlling some things?
Quote:
Kidding right? Same place the US Constitution came from. Same place the Euro came from. Same place the banning of teaching women comes from.
No, morals are personal. So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I suspect believers make terrible programmers.
I fail to see the correlation between what was reported in that article and your conclusion.
I'd rather call it my hypothesis than my conclusion. Here's the bit that stood out to me:
Article:
If you don't experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don't make the same mistakes again and again?
Errors are a common occurrence in programming. Learning from them is key to become better at programming.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It also says that they have less activity in recognizing their own errors. That is horrible programming and horrible engineering... In fact science itself is the based on the idea of making a hypothesis and then proving it wrong or right. If you can not even recognize your own errors, then by default you are a poor scientist.
Sorry but that is not how I read the article. What is says is that WHEN they spot an error they are less anxious about it. It has nothing to do with whether they spot it or not in the first place.
jschell wrote:
Sorry but that is not how I read the article.
Quote:
Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed
This means brains of believers do not receive all of or as many of the control signals for attention that non-believers do. Correct, they are less anxious (because of this). But it also means their brain is not sending all of the control signals. Not sure why you are missing that detail... Oh wait :rolleyes: NM. The "anxious" part is the conclusion from the data. The data is the fact that they are not receiving the control signals (i.e. the signals to "PAY ATTENTION!")
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This means the believers have less control. In other words they are ignoring the state around them. While in some cases this results in less error, that is because instincts kick in and often are correct. The non-believers over think the situation and an error can occur. However, in the world of science and new territory instinct is not enough.
Sorry but that isn't what it says. The section that you quote also follows with... "...the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made." You certainly can't respond to an error if you never saw it in the first place. There is nothing at all in the article that suggests that the test had anything to do with finding errors in the first place. And since the article states that a "Stroop task" was used it would seem to me virtually impossible that finding errors had any part in the study. The response measured could have only occurred as the participants recognized their own mistakes or had their mistakes specifically pointed out to them.
As I stated in your other responce you are missing what the data is. I am not drawing a conclusion. I am merely pointing out the data. The conclusion that you are implying I am making a conclusion from is in fact a conclusion of this data. The data being the fact that
Quote:
Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed
jschell wrote:
You certainly can't respond to an error if you never saw it in the first place.
And that is the rub now isn't it....
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
It doesn't say which God.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It's quite simple: a practising Christian is one who believes in God, and tries to follow the teachings of Jesus. Whether they go to church or not is irrelevant, it is what is in the heart that matters. And we use the term 'practising', because however much we try, we will never be perfect.
Sorry but I have never heard that definition before. The usage of the word that I have heard does not agree with that.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Tests such as these are far from scientific, and have as much relationship to truth and reality as a politician's promises.
Huh? You are disputing the results of the study? And/or the current understanding of the brain? Or are you just disputing the conclusion of the first poster which has far as I can tell has nothing to do with the article (and thus nothing to do with science either)?
-
I'd rather call it my hypothesis than my conclusion. Here's the bit that stood out to me:
Article:
If you don't experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don't make the same mistakes again and again?
Errors are a common occurrence in programming. Learning from them is key to become better at programming.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I'd rather call it my hypothesis than my conclusion.
Ok, but first the part that you quoted was a hypothesis or even just an opinion of the researcher and not an actual result of the study. Second the study showed a reduction, not elimination, of anxiety.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Errors are a common occurrence in programming. Learning from them is key to become better at programming.
First, the type of test given, as mentioned in the article, has nothing to do with finding mistakes, fixing them, nor learning from them. Rather the measured anxiety levels would occur either when the participant recognized their own mistake or someone pointed it out to them. Second, the lessening did not eliminate and was correlated to zeal. And I would suspect that those that post high in zeal are less likely to be programmers. And in terms of most programming environments the culture of the environment would eliminate any significance. Third of course it is quite easy to postulate that extreme anxiety is going to have a detrimental impact on programming as well. After all someone that insists every bug must be fixed isn't going to work out. And thus one can claim that a "better" programmer would be one that has some spiritual connection.
-
jschell wrote:
The usage of the word that I have heard does not agree with that.
I guess you don't understand the word 'practising'.
Use the best guess
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I guess you don't understand the word 'practising'.
Denigrating me doesn't lend credence to your position. I can assure you that the context of verbal usage and printed usage I am very sure of what it meant. Following is a religious site that explicitly points out that "many people" agree with my definition. And implicitly suggest that your definition is the limited one. http://religion.answers.wikia.com/wiki/What_is_a_practicing_christian[^]
-
jschell wrote:
Sorry but that is not how I read the article.
Quote:
Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed
This means brains of believers do not receive all of or as many of the control signals for attention that non-believers do. Correct, they are less anxious (because of this). But it also means their brain is not sending all of the control signals. Not sure why you are missing that detail... Oh wait :rolleyes: NM. The "anxious" part is the conclusion from the data. The data is the fact that they are not receiving the control signals (i.e. the signals to "PAY ATTENTION!")
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The data is the fact that they are not receiving the control signals (i.e. the signals to "PAY ATTENTION!")
I can only suppose that you think the the study is in some way measuring their ability to detect errors. That is false. The article explains the test that was given. The results, the anxiety, occurred when an error was detected. The article says nothing about how nor when the errors were detected.
-
Quote:
The fact that you do not attempt to control other people doesn't mean that others are not using it to control people.
Yes, agreed and already stated.
Quote:
As one example the Catholic church specifically forbids birth control.
But they also forbid murder, right? And aren't you OK with that one? They also forbid stealing, which I can imagine you agree with. So, doesn't that say you agree with them controlling some things?
Quote:
Kidding right? Same place the US Constitution came from. Same place the Euro came from. Same place the banning of teaching women comes from.
No, morals are personal. So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
No, morals are personal.
I disagree.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from
Irrelevant.
Quote:
I disagree
I know that you and I have different morals; therefore, they are personal.
Quote:
So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from
How can that be irrelevant? Do you not have any? You are dodging the issue.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The data is the fact that they are not receiving the control signals (i.e. the signals to "PAY ATTENTION!")
I can only suppose that you think the the study is in some way measuring their ability to detect errors. That is false. The article explains the test that was given. The results, the anxiety, occurred when an error was detected. The article says nothing about how nor when the errors were detected.
jschell wrote:
The results, the anxiety, occurred when an error was detected.
Ahhh.. Wrong. The results are less activity in the brain. Specifically that which is used for error detection which causes anxiety Not sure how you are missing that... Oh wait...NM. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cingulate_cortex[^]
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I guess you don't understand the word 'practising'.
Denigrating me doesn't lend credence to your position. I can assure you that the context of verbal usage and printed usage I am very sure of what it meant. Following is a religious site that explicitly points out that "many people" agree with my definition. And implicitly suggest that your definition is the limited one. http://religion.answers.wikia.com/wiki/What_is_a_practicing_christian[^]
jschell wrote:
Denigrating me doesn't lend credence to your position.
Where exactly did I do that?
jschell wrote:
Following is a religious site that explicitly points out that "many people" agree with my definition.
It makes no mention of you or your definition.
jschell wrote:
And implicitly suggest that your definition is the limited one.
On the contrary, it is almost exactly the same as mine.
Use the best guess
-
jschell wrote:
Denigrating me doesn't lend credence to your position.
Where exactly did I do that?
jschell wrote:
Following is a religious site that explicitly points out that "many people" agree with my definition.
It makes no mention of you or your definition.
jschell wrote:
And implicitly suggest that your definition is the limited one.
On the contrary, it is almost exactly the same as mine.
Use the best guess
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Where exactly did I do that?
By claiming that I don't understand the word.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It makes no mention of you or your definition.
I said nothing about it mentioning me. The definition that it gives is the one that I have seen in use. I will point the definition from that site specifically. "Many people consider they are practising Christians because they go to church and/or take Mass or the Lord's Supper (depending on denomination). " First part indicates "many people". Followed by two parts that both reflect behavior not belief.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
On the contrary, it is almost exactly the same as mine.
Nope. It specifically states that it is about behavior - not belief. The comment above specifically provides the definition and the two behaviors of the definition.
-
jschell wrote:
The results, the anxiety, occurred when an error was detected.
Ahhh.. Wrong. The results are less activity in the brain. Specifically that which is used for error detection which causes anxiety Not sure how you are missing that... Oh wait...NM. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cingulate_cortex[^]
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Specifically that which is used for error detection which causes anxiety Not sure how you are missing tha
From the article... " a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake." Presumably you are not claiming that the anxiety occurred when one doesn't know about the mistake? Presumably not. If so then the only way the anxiety can occur is when the participant becomes aware of the mistake either because they are told or because they are aware of it themselves. And the study measured that anxiety. To make it clear what the actual step were. 1. A test was administered 2. The participant made a mistake. 3. The mistake was detected. 4. The participant reacted. 5. The anxiety was measured from 4. The measurements had nothing to do with whether the participants themselves detected the mistake. Actually the article makes no mention of the rate of that nor how the participants detected the mistakes but the most likely scenario to insure a good measurement would have been for the testing processing itself to TELL the participant that they made a mistake. Absolutely nothing in that suggests that the results of the study had anything to do with measuring the rate of error detection.
-
Quote:
I disagree
I know that you and I have different morals; therefore, they are personal.
Quote:
So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from
How can that be irrelevant? Do you not have any? You are dodging the issue.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I know that you and I have different morals; therefore, they are personal.
I seriously doubt that most of the population of the world gives deep introspective thought to something like whether killing someone else randomly is right or wrong. They follow what others around them do. Thus it is not personal. Most significant morals are like that.
ryanb31 wrote:
How can that be irrelevant? Do you not have any?
You are dodging the issue.You are attempting to make the discussion personal which has nothing to do with it. And then attempting to blame me for it.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Specifically that which is used for error detection which causes anxiety Not sure how you are missing tha
From the article... " a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake." Presumably you are not claiming that the anxiety occurred when one doesn't know about the mistake? Presumably not. If so then the only way the anxiety can occur is when the participant becomes aware of the mistake either because they are told or because they are aware of it themselves. And the study measured that anxiety. To make it clear what the actual step were. 1. A test was administered 2. The participant made a mistake. 3. The mistake was detected. 4. The participant reacted. 5. The anxiety was measured from 4. The measurements had nothing to do with whether the participants themselves detected the mistake. Actually the article makes no mention of the rate of that nor how the participants detected the mistakes but the most likely scenario to insure a good measurement would have been for the testing processing itself to TELL the participant that they made a mistake. Absolutely nothing in that suggests that the results of the study had anything to do with measuring the rate of error detection.
jschell wrote:
And the study measured that anxiety.
Wrong. Brain activity was measured. Again, you are making a mistake. You are lacking some signals I think ;P
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Where exactly did I do that?
By claiming that I don't understand the word.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It makes no mention of you or your definition.
I said nothing about it mentioning me. The definition that it gives is the one that I have seen in use. I will point the definition from that site specifically. "Many people consider they are practising Christians because they go to church and/or take Mass or the Lord's Supper (depending on denomination). " First part indicates "many people". Followed by two parts that both reflect behavior not belief.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
On the contrary, it is almost exactly the same as mine.
Nope. It specifically states that it is about behavior - not belief. The comment above specifically provides the definition and the two behaviors of the definition.
jschell wrote:
By claiming that I don't understand the word.
I used the term "I guess" which is hardly a claim, and if you think that is denigrating you, then I think you are being over sensitive. Quite frankly I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this. All I did was to give an opinion on a news item that was posted in this forum, and followed it up with an explanation of a term for the benefit of one of our non-English members. For reasons that are a total mystery to me you seem to see this as a personal attack on you.
Use the best guess
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I know that you and I have different morals; therefore, they are personal.
I seriously doubt that most of the population of the world gives deep introspective thought to something like whether killing someone else randomly is right or wrong. They follow what others around them do. Thus it is not personal. Most significant morals are like that.
ryanb31 wrote:
How can that be irrelevant? Do you not have any?
You are dodging the issue.You are attempting to make the discussion personal which has nothing to do with it. And then attempting to blame me for it.
Quote:
They follow what others around them do.
So, who started it?
Quote:
You are attempting to make the discussion personal which has nothing to do with it.
Then what does it have to do with?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.