(March 15, 2015 at 10:16 pm)Chuck Wrote: For wooters, "open mind" means that precise degree of gullibility which would enable a fool to take wooters with some minimum degree of seriousness.

Exactly, people do not understand how easily they can fall for something. This gullibility is how all religions start.

I must not be very opened minded because I've rejected both the Quran and the Bible. Apparently an open minded person would come to the conclusion that (insert religious book here) is true. Simply rejecting the Quran as being from Allah automatically makes me a bigot. So yeah...

(March 22, 2015 at 12:32 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: I must not be very opened minded because I've rejected both the Quran and the Bible. Apparently an open minded person would come to the conclusion that (insert religious book here) is true. Simply rejecting the Quran as being from Allah automatically makes me a bigot. So yeah...

NO that doesn't make you close minded. I hate this idea that if you give up on bad claims somehow you are closed minded. Using the trash can makes you realistic, not closed minded.

Closed minded is insisting on clinging to the past when others have rightfully moved on. If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

And saying "that is not true" does not may anyone a bigot either. It merely means you accept reality and refuse to lie you yourself or those around you.

(March 22, 2015 at 7:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: (it would be immensely difficult, in any case, to determine that superstition was any more or less harmful than doing nothing - as a general operating principle, in any case...if only for the propenderance of creatures whose first survival instinct is precisely that, -do nothing...don't move, don't twitch, cut out that breathing shit to a minimum

Except that this IS doing something. And the animals that respond to this will respond to unknown stimuli as though they represent something dangerous: they'll likely freeze, for example, when my cell phone rings.

A true non-action in a behavioral sense would mean that animals would simply carry on as normal, no matter what new and mysteries circumstances were presented to them. And that, for sure, is a recipe for extinction. Just ask the dodos.

Aren't you confusing actions with belief?

Edit- No, I'm confused. I'm doing too many things at once again.

(March 22, 2015 at 8:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Except that this IS doing something. And the animals that respond to this will respond to unknown stimuli as though they represent something dangerous: they'll likely freeze, for example, when my cell phone rings.

A true non-action in a behavioral sense would mean that animals would simply carry on as normal, no matter what new and mysteries circumstances were presented to them. And that, for sure, is a recipe for extinction. Just ask the dodos.

There's a lot of insight here.

I would actually argue that there are animals out there that have senses that if they presented in human, we would call them psi. For example sharks can actually hunt prey that they can't see, smell or hear even when said prey is buried. They detect it with sensory organ on the snout that can detect very minute electronic discharges. Like a heart beat.
This of course does not apply to humans as we lack such mechanisms. The issue I have with psi is that we do have a massive body of work there but no explanative hypothesis with any credibility at all. In fact most studies can not agree that found anything.

I agree, but if a lie is repeated often enough it is treated as truth. Many reasonable people (who are essentially Atheist but may not use that term to describe themsevles) have it drummed into them that they are close minded and some people will ultimately believe that they are. Sad really. It's amazing what people can get away with.

(March 22, 2015 at 8:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Except that this IS doing something.

I know right...like I said, nothing is a funny word.

Quote:And the animals that respond to this will respond to unknown stimuli as though they represent something dangerous: they'll likely freeze, for example, when my cell phone rings.

Yup.

Quote:A true non-action in a behavioral sense would mean that animals would simply carry on as normal, no matter what new and mysteries circumstances were presented to them. And that, for sure, is a recipe for extinction. Just ask the dodos.

Or the religious/superstitious?

(mind you, I maintain that it's very difficult to make a claim like the one we're teasing out, that something is more or less beneficial, without some specific circumstance involved...and that on this basis there's likely to be a selective pressure involved -or even that selective pressure is an efficient explanation for whatever it is we see)

Considering that actual superstition has been observed in species of animals - like Skinner's pigeons, that performed random actions they associated with randomly applied stimuli - it's not unreasonable to assume there might be some sort of evolutionary benefit to it.

This is a total speculation on my part, but perhaps it's something that saves "brain power"(?). If you accept unproven and - in fact - ineffective, but emotionally pleasing solution to a problem that you're otherwise unable to solve, because of inadequate brain capabilities - you may stop "worrying" about it and can try and get on with other tasks. Maybe you'll get killed, but if you somehow survive - you'll have spent less energy, than someone who kept trying to solve the problem - unsuccessfully.

Of course - with rising intelligence, resulting in relatively smaller environmental pressure - it makes less and less sense - in terms of evolutionary advantage, to rely on superstition to "deal" with our problems, since many of those may be solved rationally - with far greater benefits.