What does Self-Transcendence mean? - JREF Forum

Events Calendar

$1 Million Paranormal Challenge

The Amaz!ng Meeting

James Randi Educational Foundation

Mark Forums Read

Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply

Page 1 of 2

1

15th November 2007, 02:15 PM	#1
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	What does Self-Transcendence mean? What does self-transcendence mean? I'll give you an example... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...t=AbstractPlus Quote: Two hundred male subjects (81 college students and 119 subjects from an addiction treatment unit) were administered the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and genotyped at the 48 base pair repeat polymorphism of the DRD4 gene. Subjects were divided by genotype into those carrying any < 4 repeat allele, those homozygous for the 4 repeat allele, and those with any > 4 repeat allele. The total MANCOVA of seven TCI summary scores, with age and diagnostic group as covariates, was significant (P < or = 0.001). The largest effect was with self-transcendence (P < or = 0.001). The total MANCOVA for the three self-transcendence subscores was significant (P < or = 0.017), with the spiritual acceptance subscore showing the most effect (P < or = 0.001, power = 0.91). These results suggest the DRD4 gene may play a role in the personality trait of spiritual acceptance. This may be a function of the high concentration of the dopamine D4 receptor in the cortical areas, especially the frontal cortex. Also: What does those probablility figures mean? I don't understand them INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

15th November 2007, 02:58 PM	#2
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by INRM What does self-transcendence mean? I'll give you an example... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...t=AbstractPlus Also: What does those probablility figures mean? I don't understand them INRM Sounds like an attempt at eugenics. It seems to imply that some people are genetically prone to feeling stoned by getting off on spiritual matters. (Whatever they might be.)
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own Last edited by Macoy; 15th November 2007 at 02:59 PM.

15th November 2007, 04:34 PM	#3
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Prone to feeling stoned? Huh? INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Last edited by INRM; 15th November 2007 at 04:38 PM.

15th November 2007, 04:42 PM	#4
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	Or prone from being stoned.

15th November 2007, 05:25 PM	#5
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	So there's a gene that makes some people prone to believing in an afterlife and spiritual things? And others not prone from such things? (Am I reading it right) INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

15th November 2007, 06:11 PM	#6
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by INRM So there's a gene that makes some people prone to believing in an afterlife and spiritual things? And others not prone from such things? (Am I reading it right) INRM They seem to claim that some get a greater dopamine hit off of "spiritual experiences", or "flashes", than those less genetically prone.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

15th November 2007, 06:19 PM	#7
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	So a vulnerable person could be "flashed" by something like an auditing machine or jesus in a pancake, and the hit is so good, they are instantly addicted.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

15th November 2007, 06:20 PM	#8
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	So those who are not genetically prone do not get as big a hit, and thus are less effected, and less addicted to such experiences? Correct? But are those who are not genetically prone still succeptable to such things (even in a lower capacity)
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Last edited by INRM; 15th November 2007 at 06:23 PM.

15th November 2007, 06:25 PM	#9
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,590	Originally Posted by INRM What does self-transcendence mean? Literally, "going beyond oneself"; "changing one's personality / behavior", I'm guessing, in the context of this study (they're testing addicts). Quote: Also: What does those probablility figures mean? I don't understand them The P-value is the probability the observed differences -- between those with the gene and those without -- could be due to chance. Originally Posted by INRM So there's a gene that makes some people prone to believing in an afterlife and spiritual things? And others not prone from such things? (Am I reading it right) I think so.
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,590	__________________ "Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny Last edited by blobru; 15th November 2007 at 06:27 PM.

15th November 2007, 06:30 PM	#10
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Reckon. So any state could use this info to test us at airports and railway stations for "scepticabilty". The innocent have nothing to fear.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

15th November 2007, 07:47 PM	#11
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Macoy/Others, Are those who are not prone still succeptable to a smaller degree, or not at all? blobru, Wouldn't this be pretty much conclusive proof that since genetics affects one's desire for an afterlife and spirituality and that the desire is in one's head prove that there is no afterlife? It sounds pretty direct to me... unless I'm reading it wrong -- I don't think so. INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

15th November 2007, 08:02 PM	#12
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by INRM Macoy/Others, Are those who are not prone still succeptable to a smaller degree, or not at all? INRM I would say that there is probably a broad spectrum of responses.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

16th November 2007, 11:11 AM	#13
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	I'm wondering here about something... If it wasn't for this gene, people wouldn't have even thought of their being some kind of afterlife? Or does this gene simply make people more readily believe it, and become addicted to the idea? INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

16th November 2007, 03:42 PM	#14
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Also, what's a MANCOVA? I have never heard that term in my life INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

16th November 2007, 06:26 PM	#15
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	I know someone who might be an example of what a person without the high-dopamine DRD4 gene... Age 51: Was raised religious, went to church (part of the parochial school she went to), dad was not religious (Raised religious, molested by priest, became hateful of religion), mom was. Never understood spirituality, or at least never got what anybody else got out of it. Same view about religion. It sounds like she (Linda A.) fits the profile fairly well. Since the gene also plays a role in the way the kidneys process sodium, I'm not sure if she has any renal problems -- father did though (but he was an alcoholic and died of renal failure) Think I'm right here?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

16th November 2007, 09:23 PM	#16
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,590	Originally Posted by INRM ...Wouldn't this be pretty much conclusive proof that since genetics affects one's desire for an afterlife and spirituality and that the desire is in one's head prove that there is no afterlife? It sounds pretty direct to me... unless I'm reading it wrong -- I don't think so. Now that you mention it, it sure doesn't make a whole lot of sense for God, at least a God who wants to be believed in, to give some people only a genetic predisposition for this kind of endeavor and not everyone. I suspect the theist would answer -- 'cause there's always an answer -- that that's the nature of faith: those without the predisposition just have to work harder to earn it but appreciate more when they get it, God seeing fit to challenge each of us differently in His infinite wisdom and mercy, and so on and so forth. The afterlife of course is going to either be there or not independent of anyone's desire for it, but what sort of afterlife would depend on one's "spirituality" in this life; so again, the question: why would God give some people an inside track on a better afterlife? Seems pretty unfair. And the pretty clear answer seems: no God (or a God who doesn't care).
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,590	__________________ "Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny

17th November 2007, 05:17 AM	#17
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by INRM Also, what's a MANCOVA? I have never heard that term in my life INRM MANOVA ="Multivariate analysis of variance" Quote: MANCOVA is an extension of ANCOVA. It is simply a MANOVA where the artificial DVs are initially adjusted for differences in one or more covariates. This can reduce error "noise" when error associated with the covariate is removed. http://online.sfsu.edu/~efc/classes/biol710/manova/manova.htm What you do is, juggle your variables till you get the answer you want.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

17th November 2007, 07:28 AM	#18
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	blobru, I'm just suggesting since the belief in an afterlife seems to be the result of genes which make people prone to thoughts of it. Wouldn't that mean that if it weren't for the gene, people wouldn't have thought of it? INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

17th November 2007, 02:43 PM	#19
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,183	Originally Posted by INRM blobru, I'm just suggesting since the belief in an afterlife seems to be the result of genes which make people prone to thoughts of it. Wouldn't that mean that if it weren't for the gene, people wouldn't have thought of it? INRM But is it the thinking of it, or the emotional and physiological response to the thought that is at issue here? It's not, after all, such a bizarre thing to imagine or to wonder about, or even to wish for. People think about a lot of things. But perhaps those less susceptible to the physiological response would also be less likely to accept the illogic of faith, and since the idea carries no physiological reward, either drop it or, even if convinced for some other reason that it's a good idea, simply not invest much energy in contemplating it. One might, after all, be like so many people who don't bother to question the prevailing beliefs of their elders and peers, but, getting no dopamine hit from them, say "yeah, whatever," and go on about their business neither wiser nor more blissful than before.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

17th November 2007, 02:54 PM	#20
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Whatever you want it to mean.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

17th November 2007, 03:16 PM	#21
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	An afterlife has always been a little problematic for me. I can't think of one that hasn't got a catch or two.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

17th November 2007, 08:07 PM	#22
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	bruto, You might be right, but keep in mind, they're not 100% sure why the DRD4 gene causes it's effects. They likely assume it's due to dopamine levels, but there could be something that is not known yet. Could be wrong though. Macoy, I was thinking, wouldn't these findings kind of answer the problem once and for all? (I'm not saying being able to live for ever wouldn't TOTALLY rock, but I'm pretty much totally certain it's not in the cards) INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

18th November 2007, 02:07 PM	#23
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Was I wrong about scientists not being 100% sure about what the DRD4 gene does? INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

19th November 2007, 09:23 AM	#24
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by INRM Macoy, I was thinking, wouldn't these findings kind of answer the problem once and for all? (I'm not saying being able to live for ever wouldn't TOTALLY rock, but I'm pretty much totally certain it's not in the cards) INRM I'm not convinced that they have necessarily discovered a "spiritualism" gene. It could be just a "susceptibility to brainwashing" gene.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

20th November 2007, 09:26 PM	#25
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Hmm, Maybe you're right Macoy, not sure though. Anyone else have their opinions?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

21st November 2007, 10:35 AM	#26
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Nobody?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

21st November 2007, 12:38 PM	#27
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	As an agnostic, I have to say that I don't know of an afterlife that makes sense. This "research" seems more like an attempt to analyse various indoctrination techniques they have chosen to mask with "spiritualim".
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own

21st November 2007, 07:12 PM	#28
drzeus99 Hellmouth Beastie Join Date: May 2006 Location: Wherever misfortune has me Posts: 366	People have always (and will always) believe in an afterlife. If a gene was responsible, and it was "turned off", people would still have thought of an afterlife. Remember, religion (in general) was created thousands of years ago for a variety of reasons. The major ones being: 1. Explaining the unexplainable 2. Controlling the masses. People were very barbaric back in the day. By trying to get someone to get their act together, a story was made up about how ones life on earth will affect them after they die. Be a scumbag on earth and you can count on sufferring torment for infinity in an afterlife. Be a good boy/girl and your afterlife will be filled with goodies. Simple as that. That's how the human mind works. Humans by nature are gullible, naive, and have the mentality of sheep. They are easy to lead (and lead on). It's not hard to convince someone of something if you sound like you know what your talking about. But it's the ones who "might" be predisposed to more easily fall into the religious stranglehold that "might" be more apt to experience these religious thoughts (which they've been raised on from early childhood). But being predisposed to something doesn't mean one WILL do something (and vice-verse). It just means you have a better chance than other around you. Cheers, DrZ

21st November 2007, 08:27 PM	#29
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	DrZeus You mean even if the gene was off people would have still believed in it? Or if they believed in it then and it was switched off now, people would still believe?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

23rd November 2007, 10:39 AM	#30
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Nobody?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

23rd November 2007, 12:57 PM	#31
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,183	Originally Posted by INRM DrZeus You mean even if the gene was off people would have still believed in it? Or if they believed in it then and it was switched off now, people would still believe? I would guess both. The gene may help, but there are other reasons for believing, and plenty of other reasons for people to cling to beliefs against good arguments and good judgment.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

23rd November 2007, 02:30 PM	#32
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	I wonder though that if that gene was never there, that the belief in an afterlife would have faded out a lot faster... I think it's kind of the "warm fuzzy" feelings that keep people sticking to it. If people didn't have as much dopamine in the cortex wouldn't they not feel those warm fuzzy feelings to the same extent? The fuzzy feelings could equate to a state of being stoned right? Well if the stoned feeling wasn't there wouldn't people have given up the belief in it? Or is there more to it than even that INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

24th November 2007, 08:56 AM	#33
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Am I right or wrong? INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

25th November 2007, 09:35 AM	#34
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Nobody?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

25th November 2007, 01:33 PM	#35
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,183	Originally Posted by INRM I wonder though that if that gene was never there, that the belief in an afterlife would have faded out a lot faster... I think it's kind of the "warm fuzzy" feelings that keep people sticking to it. If people didn't have as much dopamine in the cortex wouldn't they not feel those warm fuzzy feelings to the same extent? The fuzzy feelings could equate to a state of being stoned right? Well if the stoned feeling wasn't there wouldn't people have given up the belief in it? Or is there more to it than even that INRM I think it's anybody's guess, but I'm guessing that it would still be around, because there's more to the appeal of an afterlife, etc. than the dopamine high. People believe a lot of things because they seem plausible, comforting, useful or simple. While I can see how the genetic idea might make mysticism more appealing, I think most people who believe in things like heaven and hell and reincarnation are not mystics. They're just people who find it easier to believe these things than to struggle with the alternatives. But ultimately, I think it's anybody's guess. I'd like to see more evidence of how those who lack the gene behave and believe.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

25th November 2007, 08:16 PM	#36
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	But isn't the appeal of the afterlife the result of the warm fuzzy feelings caused by high dopamine in the cortex? Sure nobody wants to die, but without those warm-fuzzy feelings and the addicting effects would keep religious belief going where it would not lasted as long or faded completely away awhile earler under scrutiny (which if a person is feeling warm fuzzy feelings are not as likely to scrutinize -- after all if it was proven wrong it would be a HUGE buzzkill) That make sense, or am I still wrong INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

26th November 2007, 06:58 PM	#37
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Nobody?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

27th November 2007, 10:11 AM	#38
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	I'm amazed nobody has anything to say INRM
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

27th November 2007, 11:09 AM	#39
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Originally Posted by INRM But isn't the appeal of the afterlife the result of the warm fuzzy feelings caused by high dopamine in the cortex? Sure nobody wants to die, but without those warm-fuzzy feelings and the addicting effects would keep religious belief going where it would not lasted as long or faded completely away awhile earler under scrutiny (which if a person is feeling warm fuzzy feelings are not as likely to scrutinize -- after all if it was proven wrong it would be a HUGE buzzkill) That make sense, or am I still wrong INRM One could say that the appeal of an afterlife could also be the result of a fear reaction to the contemplation of its absence. Hitting any dopamine buttons would just be a bonus. ETA: So one could say that the "susceptibility gene" is just evolution.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own Last edited by Macoy; 27th November 2007 at 12:29 PM.

27th November 2007, 12:26 PM	#40
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	Double post.
Macoy Writing on water Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,363	__________________ Realists live in a world of their own Last edited by Macoy; 27th November 2007 at 12:28 PM.

Reply

Page 1 of 2

1

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

© 2001-2012, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.