- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Consult the right hemisphere of the brain!
I’m really going to have to nitpick here, and sound like a smug [something or other] and I apologize for that, but the left brain-right brain thing is a complete myth apparently according to leading neurologist Michael Gazzaniga (worth a google, fascinating guy).
A friend of mine mentioned that a pop star he had met had said to him that she was very “right brained” because she was musical. And Gazzaniga replied that this is a common popular misconception. It seems fairly ingrained in popular culture right now. It’s a useful idea, but neurologically untrue.
Quote:Basically, this is similar to how I view God, and it seems more confirmed by the early LDS church leaders, even if BRM contradicts it. But as I said, I prefer to understand God as an exalted man, not as an exalted man. I like the idea that he was human and become divine more than the idea that he IS divine; his humanity seems more relevant to me personally. Like the Mintaukan leader, I would be interested to know how to become like him (enlightenment, knowledge), not like the Mintaukan male, how to appease him so that I get what I want (reuinited with dead loved ones, safety from danger). Something about that seems like the basic argument here.
I remember the particular episode you mention well… it’s one of the best episodes of the revived series…
Either the LDS doctrine here is of a steady state universe, with numerous localized gods on their small planets, or we’ve got a case of the turtles all the way down argument here.*
I say this because if we do not consider there to be an omnipotent creator God of gods, Lord of Lords (as put in the OT), but a string of gods begatting gods, that’s the problem we have here.
Unless of course, the turtles are biting each other’s tails in a massive circle. In which case, they should be snakes.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down Quote:William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. “But, my dear lady”, Professor James asked, as politely as possible, “what holds up the turtle?” “Ah”, she said, “that’s easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle.” “Oh, I see”, said Professor James, still being polite. “But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle?” “It’s no use, Professor”, said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. “It’s turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way!”
SamBee wrote:Quote:Consult the right hemisphere of the brain!
I’m really going to have to nitpick here, and sound like a smug [something or other] and I apologize for that, but the left brain-right brain thing is a complete myth apparently according to leading neurologist Michael Gazzaniga (worth a google, fascinating guy).
Dr. Gazzaniga in this video segment
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9165http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9165” class=”bbcode_url”> abnormalbrain surgical intervention, as well as over-generalized colloquial understanding of the term “right-brain” and “left-brain”. I, on the other hand, am speaking in a specific and well understood way concerning the particular differing and unique functions of either hemisphere. See Dr Taylor below. Here’s Dr. Taylor:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html SamBee wrote:A friend of mine mentioned that a pop star he had met had said to him that she was very “right brained” because she was musical. And Gazzaniga replied that this is a common popular misconception. It seems fairly ingrained in popular culture right now. It’s a useful idea, but neurologically untrue.
I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but as a musician myself, I’m familiar with this idea. The corpus collusum makes music a beautiful thing, since generally speaking all music requires BOTH hemispheres of the brain. Your friends pop star was indeed mistaken. The same is true for juggling – you need communication between the two sides to do it.
HiJolly
Sorry, this is a thread hijack, and I apologize. No, Prof Gazzaniga doesn’t buy into the
colloquialuse of the terms at all. A friend of mine asked him right in front of me when he visited here. He certainly does talk about split hemispheres etc, but he definitely doesn’t buy into the idea of one half being hard and rational, and the other being imaginative and intuitive. He made it clear that things are much more complicated than that. (One of his interests is in morality, and in which part of the brain our morality originates, very interesting) I didn’t mean to come over rude or anything, it’s just that modern neuroscience seems to be progressing beyond that. Gazzaniga also pointed out that having done a range of brain scans that individuals vary widely in just which areas of the brain they use for specific tasks, and each of us is wired slightly differently.
(Sorry for hijacking the thread again folks!)
SamBee wrote:Sorry, this is a thread hijack, and I apologize.
No, Prof Gazzaniga doesn’t buy into the
colloquialuse of the terms at all. A friend of mine asked him right in front of me when he visited here. He certainly does talk about split hemispheres etc, but he definitely doesn’t buy into the idea of one half being hard and rational, and the other being imaginative and intuitive. Yep. I totally agree.
SamBee wrote:He made it clear that things are much more complicated than that. (One of his interests is in morality, and in which part of the brain our morality originates, very interesting)
I didn’t mean to come over rude or anything, it’s just that modern neuroscience seems to be progressing beyond that. Gazzaniga also pointed out that having done a range of brain scans that individuals vary widely in just which areas of the brain they use for specific tasks, and each of us is wired slightly differently.
SamBee,I don’t think I’m disagreeing with Dr. G. Things are much more complicated than someone just being “right-brained” or “left-brained”, but nevertheless brain physiology is quite clear as to proven differences of function. If you assume by ‘function’ I mean exclusively “hard and rational, and the other being imaginative and intuitive”, then that may explain our differences. As Dr. Taylor makes clear, that is not the nature of the differences, physiologically speaking. And she doesn’t make it an exclusive clean sweep, but qualifies her statements in a responsible manner, IMO.
Symbology of belief systems like Kabbalah does indeed generalize into saying what you have said concerning sides of the brain, but as I’m sure you already know, this is a symbolic way of viewing things and is not meant to be taken literally.
HiJolly
HiJolly, I have no problem with the thrust of what you’re saying. In cultural terms it is very useful to have such points of reference, I’m just thinking more of the neurology here. I hear this usage a lot, but think there has to be another way of putting it. There are indeed these two sides to our nature, it’s just that they don’t originate purely in these areas of the brain. Some people prefer to use terms like reason and intuition but I’m not sure they work entirely in this case either.
So, my turtle’s left and right hemispheres aside… 
Hawkgrrrl wrote:I prefer to understand God as an exalted
man, not as an exaltedman. I like the idea that he was human and become divine more than the idea that he IS divine; his humanity seems more relevant to me personally. The problem I see with this outlook is that when we start looking at God as we like, we start humanising Him, rather than exalting Him. The Greeks had a terrible case of this. Their gods were all drinkers, womanizers and frankly – kind of whiney. These gods embody human imperfections, making them very easy to relate to, but is that really the kind of god we want to have? (Obviously I know you’re not saying God is an imperfect human up in the clouds somewhere, but this is the extreme)
I would argue that an omnipotent, always-God kind of God is even more relatable than an exalted man. The latter can relate in the same way that a friend “relates” to a problem that you’re going through – like when a close relative dies and someone tells you “I know how you feel – I also once had a close relative who died.” But with an omnipotent God (no longer progressing in knowledge, but 100% all-knowing) It’s not “Ya, I had an experience similar to that so I kind of know what you’re going through” – it’s, I
knowwhat you’re thinking, what you’re feeling. Not because “I’ve been there” but because I created you, and know you intimately as your Omni-present/potent Creator. More than just someone who has gone through something similar once upon a time, He in His omnipotence knows you and everything you ever go through. What’s more relatable than someone who can actually feel what you’re feeling?
A Couple of thoughts on the topic, not only Wilford Woodruff taught the concept of our Heavenly Father progressing in knowledge but President Brigham Young taught this very forcefully, indeed he said that Orson Pratt, who I undestand first put forward that our Heavenly Father does not progress in knowledge, said that Orson’ s proouncement in ” The Seer” was eroneous doctrine and he was censured for it. I believe that our Heavenly Father knows everything concerning the creation of worlds and there is nothing more to learn about this. Another point to consider, D&C 130:9-10 tells us that if we attain to the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom we are given a white stone which says that knowledge of “Higher Order of Kingdoms” will be made to us. Maybe it is this higher knowledge that Brigham and Wilford were referring to. Jeff Walsh
I tend to agree with Jeff. I don’t think He is progressing in knowledge of the Creation or our problems. Perhaps He is still progressing in some things, glory and in things that are far beyond our comprehension, but from my perspective, He knows all I could possibly be concerned with in my existence…so the terms “omnipotence, omnibenevolent, omniscient” fit for my God, and He may be progressing still…but not in things that impact me or that I would ever notice. I have faith I can trust Him completely. Wow, this kind of an old thread that has been resurrected — but a good one. One thing that I really like about Mormonism, is that the theology really does try to make Man more divine, and God more human. If the LDS theology is correct, that all men can become gods, and god was once one of us, it just makes sense that the gods do progress and will need to continue to progress, forever.
Thanks heber31 I do not know whether you are familiar with the disputes between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt, Orson did not accept Brigham’s teachings about God increasing eternally ,also Brigham’s teachings about Adam, this was a long running spat which culminated in Orson being involved in a discussion with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 which I am sure would be called a disciplinary council today. Brett England’s book “Orson Pratt” is informative and enlightening Ironically Orson Pratts teachings on various doctrines involved in the dispute seem to be accepted today among certain teachers and certainly were championed by Elder MCKonkie in Mormon Doctrine, which by the way I was told by a manager at Deseret Book has been taken from the shelves and is no longer printed by them.
It has always been a puzzle to me that we as a Church believe in the Law of Eternal Progression but ye some believe that the Knowledge that we will have when we achieve Godhood is the full extent of all there is to learn
I believe that in the final analysis President Brigham, who said he had not taught anything that had not come from Joseph Smith, will once more be vindicated. Jeff Walsh
I need to check out that book about Orson Pratt. Sounds interesting. I think the differences in belief between BY and OP show how the church is run by good, smart men…but they disagree on their understanding of things, yet can come to consensus on issues. The same is today, and the Q12 don’t all think alike, but are called with their own views and personalities, and they discuss topics and remain united in purpose, even if not all thinking alike.
It reminds me there is enough room in Mormonism for us to each have differing ideas, but still all get along. It also tells me it is OK to question or doubt things in this religion, because there is not just ONE WAY. I’m grateful for personal and continual revelation.
cwald wrote:Wow, this kind of an old thread that has been resurrected — but a good one.
One thing that I really like about Mormonism, is that the theology really does try to make Man more divine, and God more human. If the LDS theology is correct, that all men can become gods, and god was once one of us, it just makes sense that the gods do progress and will need to continue to progress, forever.
If eternal life means having no beginning nor end, when does eternal life begin?If we can progress to become gods on that eternal continuum, when do we graduate?
There are a lot of possibilities.
I like to keep an open mind to them.
I love the stories about Orson Pratt and BY verbally duking it out during the Q15 meetings. Unfortunately, most faithful members don’t believe it…that it ever happened. (if the prophets are inspired by god – why would they ever argue and disagree with one another about doctrine?) I would love to see Urchdorf come out and publicly disagree with, say, the 14 Fs, and say something like “we in the Q15 just have a difference of opinion on this one.” Can you imagine what that would do, and how much pressure that would alleviate from many of us who have to resort to sites like StayLDS to voice our concerns and unorthodox faith and beliefs? Overnight it would be okay to talk openly and honestly at church about the doctrine and practices like it was when it was set up.
I think this thread is proof that humans cannot understand the infinite and eternal. What is forever? It sounds like a long time, but then in the eternity, is there even time? What would time signify if it had no beginning or end and neither did any of us? It’s the same thing as progressing when you are already there. If there is no beginning and no end, then is there even a path to move on to progress? It’s the same way with space. How can space go on forever, and yet if it ended, what would be beyond it? Our brains are finite and these things are not. cwald wrote:I love the stories about Orson Pratt and BY verbally duking it out during the Q15 meetings.
Unfortunately, most faithful members don’t believe it…that it ever happened. (if the prophets are inspired by god – why would they ever argue and disagree with one another about doctrine?) I would love to see Urchdorf come out and publicly disagree with, say, the 14 Fs, and say something like “we in the Q15 just have a difference of opinion on this one.” Can you imagine what that would do, and how much pressure that would alleviate from many of us who have to resort to sites like StayLDS to voice our concerns and unorthodox faith and beliefs? Overnight it would be okay to talk openly and honestly at church about the doctrine and practices like it was when it was set up.
I cannot resist replying to this cwald, a number of years ago I was teaching the gospel dotrine class and a quesion came up with regard to which day of creation Adam was created. Genesis and Moses and Abraham say the sixth, whilst D&C 77:12 says the 7th. We had a member of our ward who was a Regional Representative who was to attend a General Conference in SL so I asked him if he would put the question to one of the 12, He did so and the answer was “There is a divergence of opinion amongst the General Authorities on this question!!!!!!!!!! Jeff
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.