Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar

[Prismatic567]

Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar psychologically and neurally.

Sexual fantasies based on imagined and unreal human being in mind enhance sexual experiences. Thus there is a positive results psychologically.

God is impossible to be real and it is as best a fantasy in mind. The thought and mental clinging to an illusory God do provide and enhance psychological security and ease [a certain degree of pleasure].

Note only what is empirically possible can be imagined and conceptualized. God is not an empirical possibility and thus is at best an idea [not a concept] and thus idealized in mind.

Both Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy follow similar neural pathways that result in various degrees of activated pleasure of feeling good.
Therefore Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar psychologically and neurally.

Agree?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar psychologically and neurally.

Mi eght be good to demonstrate how you know this is the case via science. But let's say this is true. Sex obviously serves a purpose, a useful one, so does the ability to imagine. If sexual fantasy is really a true parallel to religious fantasy, then religion has likely then also eveloved because it is adaptive. And if they are in parallel, then just as there is sexual fantasy and sex, there could be religious fantasy and connection with God.

Sexual fantasies based on imagined and unreal human being in mind enhance sexual experiences. Thus there is a positive results psychologically.

I don't know about you, but the people I know and myself have often fantasized about specific real people. I think this is more likely to be the case in general.

God is impossible to be real and it is as best a fantasy in mind. The thought and mental clinging to an illusory God do provide and enhance psychological security and ease [a certain degree of pleasure].

Though of course thinking about God also gives many people guilt and fear of judgment, terror of eternal damnation. In fact there are people who derive more unpleasant thoughts than pleasant ones.

Note only what is empirically possible can be imagined and conceptualized. God is not an empirical possibility and thus is at best an idea [not a concept] and thus idealized in mind.

Then you whole analogy between sexual fantasy and religious fantasy is undermined.

Both Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy follow similar neural pathways that result in various degrees of activated pleasure of feeling good.
Therefore Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar psychologically and neurally.

You state that X is the case, and then use this statement to conclude that X is the case. This is a fantasy of reasoning and perhaps it gives you ease of mind and follows similar neural pathways to sexual fantasies, but it is not a good argument or even an argument at all.

It's interesting how you have such negative judgments of sex and religion, emotions and social need.

[Prismatic567]

Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar psychologically and neurally.

Mi eght be good to demonstrate how you know this is the case via science. But let's say this is true. Sex obviously serves a purpose, a useful one, so does the ability to imagine. If sexual fantasy is really a true parallel to religious fantasy, then religion has likely then also evolved because it is adaptive. And if they are in parallel, then just as there is sexual fantasy and sex, there could be religious fantasy and connection with God.

True, religions are adaptive because they facilitate survival in a way, but note its negative side effects [glaring evident] which need to be addressed.

Sexual fantasies based on imagined and unreal human being in mind enhance sexual experiences. Thus there is a positive results psychologically.

I don't know about you, but the people I know and myself have often fantasized about specific real people. I think this is more likely to be the case in general.

Fantasizing [mere thinking of] specific 'real' people is still unreal, i.e. in the mind and not actual/real physical sex with say the real celebrity, idol, or anyone.

God is impossible to be real and it is as best a fantasy in mind. The thought and mental clinging to an illusory God do provide and enhance psychological security and ease [a certain degree of pleasure].

Though of course thinking about God also gives many people guilt and fear of judgment, terror of eternal damnation. In fact there are people who derive more unpleasant thoughts than pleasant ones.

It is the same as fearing another person just thinking about the person.

Note only what is empirically possible can be imagined and conceptualized. God is not an empirical possibility and thus is at best an idea [not a concept] and thus idealized in mind.

Then you whole analogy between sexual fantasy and religious fantasy is undermined.

Nope. Whether it is unreal or real, both are are still mental and neural activities in the brain.

Both Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy follow similar neural pathways that result in various degrees of activated pleasure of feeling good.
Therefore Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar psychologically and neurally.

You state that X is the case, and then use this statement to conclude that X is the case. This is a fantasy of reasoning and perhaps it gives you ease of mind and follows similar neural pathways to sexual fantasies, but it is not a good argument or even an argument at all.

Note mental activities like 'love' and 'anger' appear to be different emotions but they follow the neural pathways from the limbic system. This is what I meant by fantasizing sexually and theistically are the same.

It's interesting how you have such negative judgments of sex and religion, emotions and social need.

That is not my intention.
My point is to demonstrate both are the same.
Therefore if when we can control and modulate our emotions we will be able to control our theistic impulses in some ways.
Thus I am looking for positive possibilities for the well being of humanity.

[Karpel Tunnel]

True, religions are adaptive because they facilitate survival in a way, but note its negative side effects [glaring evident] which need to be addressed.

Agreed. But since your solutions tend to have to do with removing things - pathways, neurons - baby and bathwater issues come to mind. Pretty much all facets of brain capability have negative example, including even rationality.

Fantasizing [mere thinking of] specific 'real' people is still unreal

Right, but you specifically drew parallels between sex and religion having a focus on an entity that is not real. but the focus of much sexual fantasy is on real people. If the two activities are really parallel, then perhaps religious fantasy is about something real. If the one is focused on not present real entities - the sexual fantasies - and the other is focuses on entities that do not exist at all - then the two processes are not so parallel. I Think you expressed the way you originally did to strengthen the seeming parallel. I don't Think there is much of a parallel. I also wonder what it says about your judgments of religion - which are very very strong in the negative - and what, it would seem, must be your less negative but still quite negative judtments of sex.

If it really makes sense to see them as equivalent as you argue here and elsewhere, are you thinking it would be good in the future to also neurologically minimize sexual attraction, say?

Nope. Whether it is unreal or real, both are are still mental and neural activities in the brain.

Memory, reasoning - things like philosophical thinking - dreaming, planning, even much of what we consider perception is mental and neural activities in the brain. Once we are dealing with that large category, we cannot draw any conclusions. It seems like you want to draw conclusions via comparing sexual fantasy and religious fantasy or being religious. You defend the analogy or identifitication by saying they are both mental activities in the brain. Well, so are activities you obviously Think of as positive, so I do not see what we are Learning from the analogy.

Anger and fear and joy, are in fact different emotions, they don't just seem to be, and they do not follow the exact same pathways and have quite different patterns in the body and are easy to physiologically distinguish. Scientists can tell, using MRIs, which emotions you are experiencing BECAUSE the different emotions have different, recognizable neural patterns. Of course thing like the limbic system and the orbitofrontal cortex will both be involved - given arousal and valence are involved in all emtions to varying degrees, but the neural patterns different in quality, not just degree and if you google mri differentiation of emotions, you can see that even a lay person can see the different patterns, and probably could quickly learn to say what emotion a person was experiencing by looking at the images.


I really don't Think this conflating of things helps your cause or the interests of understanding.


We can focus on the problems of emotion without trying to argue they are the same as sex. This adds nothing to a moral or practical critique of religion. It does nothing to prescribe ways of reducing the problems of religion, which as far as I can tell you hope goes away, but probably do not feel the same way about sex. Unless you are trying to demonize sex, it also comes of odd to conflate it with religion.

[Prismatic567]

True, religions are adaptive because they facilitate survival in a way, but note its negative side effects [glaring evident] which need to be addressed.

Agreed. But since your solutions tend to have to do with removing things - pathways, neurons - baby and bathwater issues come to mind. Pretty much all facets of brain capability have negative example, including even rationality.

Note the analogy of river systems within different volume of water flow and terrains to the sea.
Where there are problems of floods and other issues dams are built to modulate and control the flow to prevent catastrophe.
The flow of energy from the basement of the brain to the conscious level is similar to the river system example. We don't get rid of neurons and pathways but rather increase the strength of inhibitors along the pathways to control the various critical impulses, i.e. develop greater impulse control.

For example we do not get rid of the basic anger neural circuit but develop the relevant inhibitors around it to optimize its usefulness, e.g.

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy. - Aristotle

Fantasizing [mere thinking of] specific 'real' people is still unreal

Right, but you specifically drew parallels between sex and religion having a focus on an entity that is not real. but the focus of much sexual fantasy is on real people. If the two activities are really parallel, then perhaps religious fantasy is about something real. If the one is focused on not present real entities - the sexual fantasies - and the other is focuses on entities that do not exist at all - then the two processes are not so parallel. I Think you expressed the way you originally did to strengthen the seeming parallel. I don't Think there is much of a parallel. I also wonder what it says about your judgments of religion - which are very very strong in the negative - and what, it would seem, must be your less negative but still quite negative judgments of sex.

If it really makes sense to see them as equivalent as you argue here and elsewhere, are you thinking it would be good in the future to also neurologically minimize sexual attraction, say?

As indicated above, religion and sex [neural systems in the brain] can analogically be like two separate river systems running parallel down the same long mountain range with different terrains. Each river system may have different negative [& positive] impacts within where they flow. Obviously the negative impacts need to be control by dams and other measures.

It is not so much about whether religious fantasy [i.e. the religious drive] are real or not but rather what are its negative consequences, i.e. the glaringly evident evils acts that are committed by SOME evil prone believers.
Since I assert the religious drive e.g. religious fantasy is analogically the same as a river system which can be dammed to control its flow, then we can control the neural religious drive by developing the appropriate inhibitors within the neural system.

Nope. Whether it is unreal or real, both are are still mental and neural activities in the brain.

Memory, reasoning - things like philosophical thinking - dreaming, planning, even much of what we consider perception is mental and neural activities in the brain.
Once we are dealing with that large category, we cannot draw any conclusions. It seems like you want to draw conclusions via comparing sexual fantasy and religious fantasy or being religious. You defend the analogy or identification by saying they are both mental activities in the brain. Well, so are activities you obviously Think of as positive, so I do not see what we are Learning from the analogy.

Regardless the vast extent of neural activities, note the neural activities can be abstracted into standard patterns.
I have given the analogy of 'river systems' regarding the energy flow of brain functions from the basement of the brain to the conscious activities of an act.
I believe there are many flowchart representation of the various brain functions.

Anger and fear and joy, are in fact different emotions, they don't just seem to be, and they do not follow the exact same pathways and have quite different patterns in the body and are easy to physiologically distinguish. Scientists can tell, using MRIs, which emotions you are experiencing BECAUSE the different emotions have different, recognizable neural patterns. Of course thing like the limbic system and the orbitofrontal cortex will both be involved - given arousal and valence are involved in all emtions to varying degrees, but the neural patterns different in quality, not just degree and if you google mri differentiation of emotions, you can see that even a lay person can see the different patterns, and probably could quickly learn to say what emotion a person was experiencing by looking at the images.

I really don't Think this conflating of things helps your cause or the interests of understanding.

It is likely the emotions has their own separate modular neural pathways with side interconnections to other emotions and parts of the brain.
Whilst the emotions are on different pathways they all follow a generic system [as all emotions are classified] like how all mountain originating river systems have the same pattern and principles.

We can focus on the problems of emotion without trying to argue they are the same as sex. This adds nothing to a moral or practical critique of religion. It does nothing to prescribe ways of reducing the problems of religion, which as far as I can tell you hope goes away, but probably do not feel the same way about sex. Unless you are trying to demonize sex, it also comes of odd to conflate it with religion.

My point is the neural system for religion and sex are analogical similar to river systems that run from mountains to the oceans. The difference is the height of the mountains, the volume of water and the terrains they run through.
The neural system of religion could be analogically similar to that of the very terrible Yangtze River system rising from the Himalaya range while sex could be like the not so terrible River Nile system.
Both river systems are now controlled and modulate with dams and similar dams [neural inhibitors] can be developed to modulate the neural systems of sex and religion.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The waterway analogy seems vague to me, nor does it seem to fit modern neuroscience (the hydraulic analogy is generally considered a bad one by neuroscientists). It seems easy to use to argue for nearly anything using it and I don't see it really being used in your last post to address the points I made. It seems like a whole new thing, not something present in the post I responded to. It also seems rather easy to manipulate, the analogy that is, for one's own psychological and cultural biases.

[xhightension]

I agree partially.

Cleopatra in my mind, as a 'God' figure, gets me going.

But it also depends how you define 'God' in a worldview or schema.

I use the idea of God temporally for dopamine reward but I do not believe in a 'god in the sky.'

However, I believe in a Point. or a Source that which helps us propel consciuosness, which is not empirical but learned through experience.

[The Eternal Warrior]

Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar psychologically and neurally.

Sexual fantasies based on imagined and unreal human being in mind enhance sexual experiences. Thus there is a positive results psychologically.

God is impossible to be real and it is as best a fantasy in mind. The thought and mental clinging to an illusory God do provide and enhance psychological security and ease [a certain degree of pleasure].

Note only what is empirically possible can be imagined and conceptualized. God is not an empirical possibility and thus is at best an idea [not a concept] and thus idealized in mind.

Both Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy follow similar neural pathways that result in various degrees of activated pleasure of feeling good.
Therefore Sexual Fantasy and God Fantasy are Similar psychologically and neurally.

Agree?

No. I'm pretty sure that I'm real and not just a fantasy.