Guardian Angels

[Zinjanthropos]

At first you said fear increases perception and your study even contains the word 'enhances' and basically covers visual enhancement. Fear is one emotion, how about anxiety or hate, depression? So I don't find your quote provides any real validity to the claim that followed, what I have referred to. Provide us the citation that says emotions increase memory.

[Magical Realist]

At first you said fear increases perception and your study even contains the word 'enhances' and basically covers visual enhancement. Fear is one emotion, how about anxiety or hate, depression? So I don't find your quote provides any real validity to the claim that followed, what I have referred to. Provide us the citation that says emotions increase memory.

I already did. I'm done with your nonsense.

I'm not trying to get you or anything. I just get tired of self-proclaimed skeptics using science to support their faith-based worldview and then not knowing what the actual science says on the matter. That's all. If your not going to believe in other people's experiences of the supernatural that's fine. But don't pretend that's been proven scientifically.

[Zinjanthropos]

From your follow up(2nd) citation: "However, as with emotional content, we cannot simply say that emotional state affects memory. The nature of the emotion being felt is also important. And this, too, is not straightforward. We cannot simply say, for example, that anxiety impairs memory and happiness improves it."

Well, what is it? A reason to be skeptical? Like good scientists they realize that making the claim requires more proof than they can offer. They know their findings are subject to change.

FYI: You're talking to the biggest atheist this side of heaven. The psychic world is just another fantasy land. For me at least, the paranormal is normal (might have to read more into that statement).

[Magical Realist]

From your follow up(2nd) citation: "However, as with emotional content, we cannot simply say that emotional state affects memory. The nature of the emotion being felt is also important. And this, too, is not straightforward. We cannot simply say, for example, that anxiety impairs memory and happiness improves it."

Well, what is it? A reason to be skeptical?

Read the whole study.

"The results just described point to a role for negative emotion in
boosting not only the subjective vividness of a memory but also
the likelihood that event details are remembered."

I can say from my own experience that both good and bad emotions enhance memory. I remember joyous moments from my childhood vividly along with the terrible moments.

[Zinjanthropos]

From your follow up(2nd) citation: "However, as with emotional content, we cannot simply say that emotional state affects memory. The nature of the emotion being felt is also important. And this, too, is not straightforward. We cannot simply say, for example, that anxiety impairs memory and happiness improves it."

Well, what is it? A reason to be skeptical?

Read the whole study.

"The results just described point to a role for negative emotion in
boosting not only the subjective vividness of a memory but also
the likelihood that event details are remembered."

Yes, I agree it plays a role in perception of past events. Not disputing that.

Let me try this:

Perhaps the language is bad and misunderstood. IMHO, the memory of a past event is filed away and no matter what causes me to have total recall, it will not increase the size of the file. Enhancement adds the detail you had forgotten, so in that sense it increases the details actually remembered prior to emotional influence. I can look around this room and notice bookshelves full of thousands of books but if for some reason I had to recall the titles of each one, not going to happen. I'll be the first to change my mind if proven otherwise. Subtleties and insignificant details of a past event, if you could prove I'd remember the entire picture because of an emotion, then I'm all ears. Even I could, it's still all I remember.

[Syne]

I had similar feelings once.  It is soothing, romantic, and attractive to intellectuals, but it still entails a sacred character.  It blends the human element with an exalted element, which cooks up a rather egotistical self-portrait, don’t you think? While we may be a part of the totality, why the need to label it as spiritual?  You have own personal blend, right?  I am genuinely curious and would like to know what it is.  Will you tell me more about it?

What sacred character? IMO, panentheism only differs from pantheism in that it accounts for emergent properties that are more than the sum of parts. Interactions that take on a life (or motivation) of their own. I'm not sure what's soothing or romantic about that, aside form maybe the mystery involved. No individual is exalted beyond their own actual existence. At the most, it only affirms potential, but not beyond what the individual is actually capable of.

These sorts of emergent properties tend not to be physical, and "spiritual" is a convenient and aptly descriptive differentiation. I don't personally think in terms of "spiritual" though. In a sense, I'm agnostic to the idea that we truly understand the human brain/mind, social behavior, or even life until we can accurately create or predict these. I'm comfortable with people calling these mysteries "spiritual", but I mostly just think of them as "potential".

And to the extent that these emergent properties effect other people, religion is a good primer for ethics. Personally, I favor the teachings of Jesus, although I do not think the Bible the literal word of god so much as an emergent understanding expressed by individuals in terms of their own era. Same with all other religions, with some just hewing closer to ethical. "God" is shorthand for the totality of emergent properties and behaviors.

The universe is "god's" body, just as our actions are its hands and our thoughts its mind. Heaven and hell coexist here, in the perceptions of individuals in this life. You may think that sort of language is romanticizing, but I see it as functionally descriptive in a way hard to encompass so succinctly otherwise.

[Magical Realist]

From your follow up(2nd) citation: "However, as with emotional content, we cannot simply say that emotional state affects memory. The nature of the emotion being felt is also important. And this, too, is not straightforward. We cannot simply say, for example, that anxiety impairs memory and happiness improves it."

Well, what is it? A reason to be skeptical?

Read the whole study.

"The results just described point to a role for negative emotion in
boosting not only the subjective vividness of a memory but also
the likelihood that event details are remembered."

Yes, I agree it plays a role in perception of past events. Not disputing that.

Let me try this:

Perhaps the language is bad and misunderstood. IMHO, the memory of a past event is filed away and no matter what causes me to have total recall, it will not increase the size of the file. Enhancement adds the detail you had forgotten, so in that sense it increases the details actually remembered prior to emotional influence. I can look around this room and notice bookshelves full of thousands of books but if for some reason I had to recall the titles of each one, not going to happen. I'll be the first to change my mind if proven otherwise. Subtleties and insignificant details of a past event, if you could prove I'd remember the entire picture because of an emotion, then I'm all ears. Even I could, it's still all I remember.

I think you misunderstand. It isn't your emotion NOW that increases recall. It is your emotion when you have the experience that makes it more memorable. This is simply self-evident. Emotion imprints our experiences into our memory more vividly and accurately. And studies back this up, as I have cited. Here's a study on positive emotions and peripheral memory enhancement :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044328/

[Zinjanthropos]

The universe is "god's" body, just as our actions are its hands and our thoughts its mind. Heaven and hell coexist here, in the perceptions of individuals in this life. You may think that sort of language is romanticizing, but I see it as functionally descriptive in a way hard to encompass so succinctly otherwise.

Long ago on a forum having gone extinct and forgotten I posted something to the effect that lonely isolated God, could claim omniscience if he only knew two more things, what it was like to die and how did he get here. In short, he blows himself up and a universe is formed consisting of his remnants which, and this is the important part, maintain an elusive property that we call life. People actually believed my story had an element of truth to it. I thought my fable represented a romantic idealized view and wasn't a bad effort for an atheist. So I think any similar descriptions fit into the same mould. However, that's just my opinion.

---

I think you misunderstand. It isn't your emotion NOW that increases recall. It is your emotion when you have the experience that makes it more memorable. This is simply self-evident. Emotion imprints our experiences into our memory more vividly and accurately. And studies back this up, as I have cited.

Somehow I think we are arguing against each other for the same thing, expressed differently. I can't get the word 'enhance' out of my mind. You seem to like "increase". Invigorating as an argument can make one feel, I just remembered one thing I should do(eureka moment) when confronted with that thought......just leave it at that

[Magical Realist]

I think you misunderstand. It isn't your emotion NOW that increases recall. It is your emotion when you have the experience that makes it more memorable. This is simply self-evident. Emotion imprints our experiences into our memory more vividly and accurately. And studies back this up, as I have cited.

Somehow I think we are arguing against each other for the same thing, expressed differently. I can't get the word 'enhance' out of my mind. You seem to like "increase". Invigorating as an argument can make one feel, I just remembered one thing I should do(eureka moment) when confronted with that thought......just leave it at that

Ok...tks for the chat..

[Secular Sanity]

What sacred character? IMO, panentheism only differs from pantheism in that it accounts for emergent properties that are more than the sum of parts. Interactions that take on a life (or motivation) of their own. I'm not sure what's soothing or romantic about that, aside form maybe the mystery involved. No individual is exalted beyond their own actual existence. At the most, it only affirms potential, but not beyond what the individual is actually capable of.

These sorts of emergent properties tend not to be physical, and "spiritual" is a convenient and aptly descriptive differentiation. I don't personally think in terms of "spiritual" though. In a sense, I'm agnostic to the idea that we truly understand the human brain/mind, social behavior, or even life until we can accurately create or predict these. I'm comfortable with people calling these mysteries "spiritual", but I mostly just think of them as "potential".

And to the extent that these emergent properties effect other people, religion is a good primer for ethics. Personally, I favor the teachings of Jesus, although I do not think the Bible the literal word of god so much as an emergent understanding expressed by individuals in terms of their own era. Same with all other religions, with some just hewing closer to ethical. "God" is shorthand for the totality of emergent properties and behaviors.

The universe is "god's" body, just as our actions are its hands and our thoughts its mind. Heaven and hell coexist here, in the perceptions of individuals in this life. You may think that sort of language is romanticizing, but I see it as functionally descriptive in a way hard to encompass so succinctly otherwise.

Don’t get mad or defensive, Syne, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to call yourself a theist. A theist believes there is a "God" who made and governs all creation. A sacred charter, if you will. It may sound harmless and benign like the moderates, but there’s no two ways about it. When you use that type of language, you’re giving credence to "potentially" destructive bullshit.