The Science and Neuroscience of Good vs Evil: Damasio, Jung, Einstein & the Trolley Neuroscience Experiments!

  • Originally Posted By Charles E Peck Jr.
  • 27 Feb, 2019

The Human Mind is Incredibly Complex, &  to some extent, beyond measurement!

The human mind is incredibly complex and, to an extent, beyond strict measurement and quantification. In fact, at times, some people appear to mistake knowledge for “truth!” As an important aspect of ‘scientific’ perspective, it would seem useful to understand that there are indeed some limits to knowledge and rational analysis. Albert Einstein’s biographer, Walter Isaacson, observed in his book Einstein: His Life and Universe (2007), that Einstein believed that science had limitations and furthermore that Einstein did, in fact, have his own personal and private spiritual and religious views. Einstein remarked that his very reverent and spell-binding vision of the  “mystery” of the universe and life that gave birth to his compelling drive to understand life and the universe. Einstein observed, “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration of this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.” (p. 384-5 E) Many scientists, such as Jung and the physicist Pauli, agreed with Einstein that there would appear to be some definite limits to human comprehension and consciousness. 

Relevant to understanding this discussion would be the fact that Einstein stressed that “imagination” is more important and valuable than knowledge because imagination includes not only “what is” (knowledge) but also includes all the hypothetical possibilities and potential realities. In fact, Einstein’s discovery of the theory of relativity would seem to be rooted in his “imaginative” thought experiments, such as his “elevator” thought experiment appeared clearly to demonstrate. The bottom line would be, then,as Jung, Einstein, William James and others emphasized,that the “Science of Psychology” does have some limitations, in some circumstances.  

The limitations of rational analysis and knowledge couldn’t be clearer than when it comes to moral questions of right and wrong, as well as when principles and ideals like freedom, justice, or equality are involved. At an Address to the Princeton Theological Seminary on May 19, 1939, Einstein stated unequivocally, as noted in the book, Ideas and Opinions (1954, 1982): that it is “equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations.” (p. 42) Sixty-one years after Einstein made that speech, the neuroscientist and doctor, Antonio Damasio, in his book The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (2000), stated unequivocally that “Inevitably emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.” (p. 55)

In fact, Andrew Newberg, the famous medical doctor and neurologist, goes even further and states in his book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth (2006), “If a concept or experience elicits no emotional response, it probably will not reach the level of consciousness.” (p. 95) This echoes what the iconic psychoanalyst Carl Jung stated decades earlier, when, in Volume 8 of the Collected Works paragraph 642, Jung stated “that an idea which lacks emotional force can never become a life-ruling factor…… [that is] an idea must evoke a response from the emotions, I meant an unconscious readiness which, because of its affective nature, springs from deeper levels that are quite inaccessible to consciousness.” 

Kay Deaux, a prominent social psychologist, highlights the fact that social psychology has historically had an “emphasis on experimenter-created social groups” which “precluded most affective displays.” Experiments conducted in a laboratory would necessarily have a contrived and arbitrary aspect to them, and cognitive concepts, structures and paradigms tend to be nice, neat, and precise constructs that are measurable in some sense. As the philosopher Solomon and others frequently emphasize, emotions tend to have a”subjective” characteristic and are difficult to quantify and measure. Deaux, in her critical analysis of social psychology, goes on to say, “In contrast, natural groups, whether family, fraternity, or nation, are often the arena for intense displays of emotion and strong affective ties.” (p. 794 Handbook) 

It should be noted that the almost universally accepted theory of group related behavior is entirely cognitive, originating largely in Tajfel and Turners’ “minimal group paradigm, so named because “minimal” refers to the fact that a trigger to group related behavior, in their theory is entirely cognitive. The final result, however, as Kay Deaux emphasizes is that the social identity as a model or theory of group-related behavior utterly fails to explain the group related behaviors for instance of Trump rallies during which Trump followers chant about the quad, four minority Congresswomen, vilified and demonized by Trump, “Send them Back.” So, the “Science of Psychology” has limits.  
Carl Jung, goes even a little further than just the issue of right versus wrong in stating that there are some aspects of human consciousness that are beyond the ordinary scope of ‘science.”  In Volume 8 of the Collected Works, paragraph 120, when Jung states: “Since nobody can penetrate to the heart of nature, you will not expect psychology to do the impossible and offer a valid explanation of the secret of creativity.” Now, Jung was talking specifically about “creativity.” In that context, however, surely ideals such as freedom liberty, compassion, justice, and equality would also need to be included in the same category of ‘expecting psychology to do the impossible. Ideals generally involve principles, values, and ethics, categories which, ordinarily, do not readily lend themselves to quantification, measurement and rational analysis. These ideals rely on incredibly abstract ideas and highly emotionally charged concepts. In any case, Damasio’s statement about emotions and the unconscious being the ultimate source in decision-making in questions of good and evil is very relevant.

                Neuroscience: The Trolley and Footbridge Dilemma

The neuroscientist Joshua Greene and his colleagues performed some fascinating experiments that focused on how the brain processes moral dilemmas and situations. While subjects were asked questions relating to moral dilemmas, the subjects were undergoing MRI scanning to see which parts of the brain were active. The dilemmas presented were similar to the trolley dilemma

                                                                                                         Trolley Dilemma.

“A runaway trolley is headed for five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save these people is to hit a switch that will turn the trolley onto a side track where it will run over and kill one person instead of five. Is it okay to turn the trolley in order to save five people at the expense of one?” (p. 58 neuro and moral)

That definitely is an interesting question. I posed the dilemma to my friends and family. My son, Teddy, said he wouldn’t because he didn’t have the right to since he didn’t have enough information and facts about the people involved. My son, Stephen asked if he liked any of the five people. My sister, Perry, found the question disturbing and simply didn’t answer at all. In reading the dilemma my reaction was that it was okay to switch the trolley and kill the one person. It was only later that the question occurred to me, What if the one person was my mother? In the end I agreed with Teddy. In order to act appropriately one needs adequate information and facts. The consensus of philosophers and people tested experimentally is “that it is morally acceptable to save five lives at the expense of one in this case.” (p. 58) A corollary of the trolley dilemma is the footbridge dilemma.

                                                                                                         Footbridge dilemma

“As before, a runaway trolley threatens to kill five people, but this time you are standing next to a large stranger on a footbridge spanning the tracks, in between the oncoming trolley and the five people. The only way to save the five people is to push this stranger off the bridge and onto the tracks below. He will die as a result, but his body will stop the trolley from reaching the others. Is it okay to save the five people by pushing the stranger to his death?

Even though, rationally, there is no objective difference between the two dilemmas in that in both cases only one person dies if you intervene, the consensus was that it is not okay to push the stranger onto the tracks. In explaining the difference Greene argued that innate prohibitions against interpersonal violence would account for the difference. The footbridge dilemma involved a situation which is “up close and personal” and people naturally shy away from overt violence.

Before the experiments were run, Greene hypothesized that the footbridge dilemma would show more activity “in the brain regions associated with emotional response and social cognition” (p 59) while the more impersonal trolley dilemma would involve systems related to “higher cognition.” (p 59) That was precisely what they found. “Contemplation of personal moral dilemmas produced relatively greater activity in three emotion related area.” (p.59) (posterior cingulate cortex, the medial prefrontal cortex, amygdala) In the more impersonal trolley dilemma there was “relatively greater neural activity in two classically ‘cognitive’ brain areas.” (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and inferior inferior parietal lobe). (p 60) They also found that those people who did answer yes to the footbridge dilemma took much longer in coming to an answer, which makes sense. It naturally would take the brain more time for the “higher cognition” processes to over-ride instinctual impulses.

The human brain is incredibly complex. Obviously, there isn’t a specific ‘moral’ region of the brain that processes information relative to all situations that involve morals. Different situations produce different means for processing information. Different regions of the brain perform different functions and more than one region of the brain actively works on the same problem. It is noteworthy that the amygdala was involved in the footbridge dilemma. While the amygdala does process information about potential rewards, it primary function, so to speak, is that of a town watchman who sounds the alarm. The amygdala is in a region of the brain which is one of the most primitive regions.  Decision making, in this case, involved not only emotional content but also involved instinctual processes.

 The well-known “subjective” characteristic of emotions is very salient in understanding emotions – and thus morals. In that much of human consciousness, which would be the capacities of human beings to experience, feel, and think about the world and the All, psychology, as such would appear definitely Not to be a hard science such as chemistry or physics , since precise direct measurement and quantification of subjective emotions would appear at the moment to be beyond the capabilities of the “science” of psychology.

Conclusions:

Neuroscience has now identified 360 separate and distinct regions of the brain. Also, a recent neuroscience MRI experiment identifying regions of the brain connected with the processing of specific images of objects showed that there were a fair number of region that “lit” up  when the image of a hammer was shown. So, it would stand to reason that when more complex issues are involved, a number of diverse regions of the brain would likely be involved. 

As the Trolley-Footbridge MRI experiment showed, different situations engage or trigger different regions of the brain, and that different regions of the brain work in tandem with other regions of the brain. That would be very relevant to any correct understanding of how the brain processes information or social signals not only about moral issues, but where spirituality or religious beliefs are concerned. I have come across many people who reject spirituality because of how religions behave or act. In the case of Evangelical leaders who support Trump, it would seem readily apparent that processes involved with group related ideological behaviors would be involved, while the brain processes involved in the spiritual-religious ideal of compassion would most likely be the anterior cingulate (which  the psychologist Tania Singer has shown arr implicated in empathy). 

In the footbridge dilemma, the conclusions of Joshua Green and his colleagues was that the more emotional (and ‘primitive’) processes were a major influence in the decision of many people in the experiment to avoid up close interpersonal conflict. So the conclusion is that some of the more ‘primitive’ and emotional processes are involved – positively, in fact – in making moral decisions. Of course, this contradicts many peoples’ views including the philosopher Spinoza, who believe that morals are entirely a rational or cognitive activity.      

          Footnote: Materialism: No Spirituality, No Meaning, and No Social ConsciousnessAlthough many psychologists and authors such as Francis Collins, author of God’s DNA and Director of NIH, the maverick scientist Rupert Sheldrake, the psychologists Baruss and Mossbridge, as well as the French philosopher Guenon, who long ago argued that materialism began with Descartes,talk about the important issue of materialism and the materialist bias in mainstream psychology,not many people do not have any awareness that materialism exists much less that masterailism eliminates All spiritualtiy, All Meaning, and Any social consciousness. Being that, as Frankl notes the different disciplines and shcools of thought are compartmentalized and often somewhat secluded at times, some psychologists may not be aware of the extent of the “materialism bias.” However,  when you review “The Story of Psychology,” which is a 700 plus page comprehensive ‘History of Psychology’ textbook, which was written by Morton Hall, a well-known and prolific author on the subject of psychology (Anchor Books, 2007), and do not find even one single reference to either spirit, spirituality, religion, or even meaning (hard to believe – but true), you know right away that materialism is a problem.

In light of the fact that for tens and thousands of years human beings have believed in spirit, spirits, and spirituality, coupled with the fact that science has shown that some traits of religiosity are inherited, it would be highly likely that the human mind would contain at minimum several unconscious spiritual processes.  And then, what about the spirituality of civic activists like Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Mother Theresa, or Dr. Albert Swietzer? There are all sorts of spirituality, from a family member grieving for the loss of a departed loved one, The spirituality of helping and generosity, as well as the spirituality in many medical healing techniques, as many doctors note. What happened to all them?  Then there are the prominent psychologists-psychoanalysts who were very creative, Carl Jung, William James, and Viktor Frankl – each of who had  And without question they had the best analyses of religious and spiritual beliefs.Of course a good question would be how a highly advanced scientific civilization such as ours, could even contemplate the idea of “No Spirituality” for even a millisecond. In my view materialism has thrown away the baby with the bathwater. I mean,…”NO Spirituality at all?? Really? ”  

What makes materialism relevant to me is that, from talking to psychology professors at Maryland Universities, doing a quick overview of courses offered as well as looking over the specialties of professors of psychology, not to mention information gathered from talking to a psychology major in her last semester, it is somewhat disconcerting that it appears relatively apparent that most Maryland Universities curriculum appear to reflect the rather extreme materialist bias so blatant in Morton Hall’s comprehensive ‘History of Psychology.’ Two separate psychology professors at universities in Maryland let me know that if I wanted to talk to a psychology professor about spirituality or religious beliefs, I would need to go outside Maryland. Also, I looked over the ’specialties’ of professors and associate professors at a Catholic University and there was not one single reference to either spirituality or existential and positive psychology. That should tell you something. It is crystal clear Maryland Universities sideline and marginalize spirituality in all forms and it is apparent to an extent psychology seriously represses spirituality, as well. Dr. Koenig, a well know author and researcher from Duke University, who presents medical research that spirituality has definite benefits for physical health and well-being,  has pointed out that about half the medical universities course in spirituality are offered. However there are no courses about spirituality in Maryland Universities. plus only Loyola University offers a course in the ‘Psychology of Religion.’  The bottom line is that I do not have a psychology professor in the state of Maryland that any understanding of spiritual and religious beliefs.

Furthermore, from personal experience and from research, it is readily apparent that clinical psychologists in the state of Maryland have no ready access to the survey-studies that Park and Paloutzian recently reviewed that show that depending on the questions somewhere between one third and half of people have spiritual experiences of one sort or another. Even more important park and Paloutzian state the studies definitely demonstrate a “normalcy” to the experiences.  That is “I am OK! You are OK! – and having spiritual experiences is OK too! From personal experience I can tell you no one I have met has any knowledge of these studies. Of course I got no response to any of the emails I sent to the Department of Health. Unfortunately, many health professionals treat people who have transcendental spiritual experiences as it they were some kind of aliens or even subhuman (since literally the “norm” is that spiritual experiences are automatically and necessarily irrational). 

Materialism is rooted in the bias of many psychologists toward physiological and biological explanations and ‘proofs.’ In 1933, the iconic psychologist Carl Jung pointed out that “The “modern belief in the primacy of physical explanations” effectively leads to the elimination of all metaphysical and spiritual aspects of human consciousness. The modern positive psychologists, Pargament and Mahoney, make the observation that “Since the early part of the twentieth century, …..psychologists have tended to treat spirituality as a process that can be reduced to more basic underlying psychological, social, and physiological functions.” 

 It would seem that, only too often, many psychologists take the view that anything that appears to be somehow “transcendent” of physiology or hard biochemistry, or which encompasses intangible concepts, archetypes and the collective unconscious, spirituality, or perhaps even of somewhat nebulous ideals such as freedom or justice as something “nonscientific” or even perhaps even as “superstitious nonsense.” Yet, when viewed from afar, “materialism,” appears to be an incredibly narrow and limited way of looking at things. And, in the end, materialism is a state of mind, a way of looking at the world and human consciousness, and definitely not an “Absolute Truth.” In the end, there is much about human consciousness that simply is not provable – or dis-provable – that is a matter of judgment, beyond science.  

Furthermore, “reductionism”, the principle of ‘reducing” something to its constituent parts, which is generally associated with the emphasis of materialism for measurement and quantification, has produced in psychology a very large number of specialized concepts and theories, for example “self-determination theory” – all of which are useful in a limited sense, yet produce a very large amount of un-integrated and un-synthesized parts and pieces produced by reductionism.  As the maverick scientist Rupert Sheldrake emphasizes, “The trouble is that the sciences give us vast amounts of data, but it is devoid of personal or spiritual meaning.” (p.169)

In the end, human beings absolutely need the “mystical,” “spiritual,” and intangible concepts and ideas which do in some fashion or form “integrate” and “synthesize” all the concepts, ideas, beliefs, and theories which would otherwise be nothing but “clutter.” It’s somewhat of a paradox that it would seem likely that the more materialist science and psychology “reduces” the human being to its almost numberless parts and pieces, the more people will need all the mystical, spiritual, and intangible ideas and concepts that materialism rejects. As Shane Eynon points out, “Much of Jung’s life-work, according to Joseph Henderson, had the ability to shatter the illusion that modern man and the myths and symbols of past cultures are somehow separated. That symbols and myths are somehow irrelevant to our current society and epoch.” – and is not irrelevant or “superstitious nonsense.”              The Science of Psychology did, in fact, Diverge from “Scientific Method” (as Defined by Aristotle Two Thousand Years Ago)    Preface: Scientific Method as described by Aristotle over two thousand years ago is: 1. Gather the facts; 2. categorize; 3. analyze; 4. draw conclusions. My argument is that psychology and psychologists largely overlooked the “categorization” step in scientific method.   The most glaring absence is the absence of any prominent (or any role for that matter” for a powerful drive or motivation connected with spiritual beliefs and spirituality. For the moment, let me just mention that even the briefest overview of human history reveals a history replete with religious events, activities, and social structures. Until perhaps the last one thousand years Everything in human history revolved in one way or another around religions and religious beliefs. Human history is a history of religions emerging, forming, reforming, and evolving.   So, it would seem an inescapable argument that the human being without question would have drives and motivations inextricably and intimately linked and connected to spiritual processes. My argument is that, when psychology bypassed “categorization” of spiritual experiences, psychology overlooked quite a few very important and salient aspects of religious beliefs and spiritual beliefs.  For the record I did question a few psychologists about a “drive” linked to spiritual processes, for instance in civic activists like Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, or Tolstoy. I did get a response from an award winning author and retired psychology-philosophy professor who had taught Psychology of Religion that he had not heard of a ‘spiritual-religious drive. To overlook a powerful drive that without question led to some very substantial and important achievements in human history would seem a very significant question and issue that psychology really needs to include in its Psychology of Religion Textbooks 
  
 Drive, Spirit as Life Force, and Other Categories of Spirituality
I should emphasize, for the record.  that, while there is Jungian psychology, logotherapy (based on Viktor Frank), as well as existential psychology, “mainstream psychology has a materialis t bias which sidelines and marginalizes spirituality. Furthermore, I should emphasize that the bottom line when it comes to psychology is what it “teaches,” not what this book or that book says. 

Generally, when I speak with ‘ordinary’ people, most talk about either Maslow or Freud. Neither theory is substantially supported by any facts or evidence, and thus not being truly ‘scientific, in my mind they should be taught at all because they are both incredibly misleading. In fact, when i talk to “Christian” leaders, they also frequently bring up Maslow. The three best analyses of religious beliefs are clearly done by Viktor Frankl, Carl Jung, William James, as well as the sociologist Emile Durkheim. ordinary people infrequently have heard anything about Viktor Frankl. A psychology major I talked about didn’t react much when I talked about Frankl. She did seem to know about Jung’s Collective Unconscious and archetypes, but nothing about his work in spirituality. A psychologist I spoke with did tell me that graduate level psychology definitely does include Frankl. The bottom line is that just because this person or that person has written a book means nothing.
Furthermore, as the 2018 Barna study emphasized that much of the younger generation believe that religion, and spirituality are not “relevant” precisely because that is pretty much what is being taught. “mainstream Psychology has very very little to say positive about spirituality. In fact, much of mainstream psychology, quite frankly, conveys spirituality as “superstitious nonsense” in mind. Psychology as a general rule pushes aside any positive benefits of spirituality. That ignores the reality and truth of spirituality as often expressing the sense of wonder, awe, mystery, imagination, as well as “creativity” – and so, in my mind definitely lacks perspective and objectivity.
Even a brief overview of human history readily and pretty obviously shows that religious beliefs and religions are prevalent, pervasive, and even dominant in all societies throughout the world. Of course, that fact would clearly indicate that spiritual processes are intimately connected to the “drive” of human beings to create – and to survive. I should mention here briefly that I did ask an award winning well-known author, and retired professor of psychology-philosophy about the presence of “drive” in the ‘Psychology of Religion.’ He did say that to his knowledge the issues of spirit and spiritual processes in terms of a “drive had not come up in the ‘psychology of religion’ as a salient issue.  
Emile Durkheim, a founding father of sociology, argued that religious beliefs and spiritual beliefs, for all practical purposes ‘created’ society. The creation of the social ideals of compassion, justice, truth, righteousness, and so, is a self-evident proof of Durkheim’s argument. In fact, I would argue that compassion, righteousness, justice, truth, charity, and so on are separate categories of their own. Categorization becomes very important when you come to the categories such as the spirituality of civic leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Tolstoy, and others.
I try to connect to everyone about spirituality. I wrote a short essay about just that issues and sent it to two very intelligent college graduates. I was shocked when I received very emotional and actually a bit irrational responses. Historically, the spirituality of civic leaders has been pivotal and vital throughout human history. But when psychologists failed to categorize spirituality the scientific-materialist psychology norm that spirituality is “superstitious nonsense” which started with the Scientific Revolution’s idea that a “Supernatural Being” being is “superstitious nonsense” generalized and became “All Spirituality is superstitious nonsense” in many corners of academia and often with many college educated people.
Another very important category that appears to have been overlooked would be the category of “spirit” as a “life-Force” as an unconscious or archetypal emotive influence, an idea, which is actually found in every culture throughout the entire world. In light of recent research into unconscious processes by Bargh and other psychologists, it would seem very important that human beings have unconscious processes with intrinsic spiritual archetypes as Jung argued. Furthermore, there are other categories easily identified by over-viewing prehistoric religions such as the belief in animal spirits – which likely helped human beings make it past the hunter-gatherer stage – and is still prevalent in many places in the world. Also, there is the belief in a ‘divine spirit” in trees, stones, and the physical world. Of course, many people in contemporary society either believe, or show an interest in astrology, which probably began in a ‘scientific’ effort to make the sun and the seasons predictable, the first efforts of which date back some 9,000 years. On top of that artistic processes – and traits – have connections with religion and spiritual beliefs dating back to the Lascaux caves of France twenty or thirty thousand years ago. Plus there is music, dancing, rituals, sacred objects, and so on, and so on.
One could easily spend an entire lifetime “categorizing” spirituality and religious beliefs. However, as Carl Sagan stressed, “ideas” and “symbols” are the pivotal characteristics of any theory. It is the ideas and symbols that convey a picture or ‘portrait’ of any theory. The idea of “spirit” as a drive, as a “Life-Force” built into the inner and unconscious essence of human beings, as intimately connected with “ideals” and idealism, and as “creative” unconscious processes would be a drastic revision of mainstream psychology’s idea or norms about spirituality. My argument is that the ‘Psychology of Religion” as it is today lacks perspective and leaves out the “Creativity” and “Drive” of spirituality, and in that way distorts the role of spirituality in the human mind and psychology.  
 Some Conclusions

Of course, I feel I should highlight the fact, that in my view the ‘Psychology of religion’ books, which I have reviewed, failed to adequately deal with the “Teachings of Religion” – which begs the question how one can write a ‘Psychology of Religion’ book without at least bringing up the “teachings of Religions.” Furthermore, there doesn’t appear to be any salient or readily visible “function,” “purpose,” or “raision d’etre” of religious and spiritual beliefs in the Psychology of Religion Books I personally reviewed. 

Here is a link to what I believe is a better description and portrayal of religious and spiritual beliefs that includes not one function but four primary needs or drives: the Need for Meaning, the Need to Belong, the Need for Ideology-Structure, and the Spiritual Drive. Needless to say an entity as large and and complicated as religion would need several different forces and factors to explain it,rather than the frequently one-function theories typically offered. The Dynamics and Functions Underlying Religious Beliefs of Religion: the Need for Meaning-Purpose, Belongingness & the Need for Others, the Need for Ideology-Structure, & Spirit and the Spiritual Drive! https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/a-theory-of-religion-need-for-meaning-need-to-belong-need-for-… 

Link to website about spirituality: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/

Link to Facebook page on spirituality: https://www.facebook.com/spiritualityforyou/

                              Content Copyrighted Charles E Peck Jr. Copyright ©

https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/good-vs-evil-psychology-is-not-a-science-einstein-jung-and-neuroscience-on-the-genesis-of-good-and-evil

Click Here: to easily “Return to Home Page”.

References and Footnotes

Profile of Dr. James Doty: https://profiles.stanford.edu/james-doty

The Center for Compassion And Altruism Research And Education: http://ccare.stanford.edu/

American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/

Association for Psychological Science: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/about/links.cfm

Albert Einstein comprehensive website: http://alberteinsteinsite.com/

Albert Einstein Biography: https://www.biography.com/people/albert-einstein-9285408

Godel’s Theorem of Incompleteness: https://www.jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/godels_theorem.html

John Bargh, PhD: http://bargh.socialpsychology.org/

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/bargh/index.html

Rupert Sheldrake: https://www.sheldrake.org/

Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktor-frankl.com/

Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktorfrankl.org/

Dr. Harold Koenig: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d

Dr. Harold Koenig: https://medicine.duke.edu/faculty/harold-g-koenig-m-d

Roy Baumeister: http://www.roybaumeister.com/

Roy Baumeister: https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/baumeisterr/baumeister.dp.php

Dr. Paul Wong: http://www.drpaulwong.com/

Dr. Paul Wong: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/paul-wong-biography/

Clifford Geertz: https://www.biography.com/people/clifford-geertz-9308224

Carl Jung: https://www.biography.com/people/carl-jung-9359134

Carl Jung: https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/carl-jung-analytical-psychology

12 common Archetypes: http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/the_12_common_archetypes.html

Emile Durkheim: http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/

Emile Durkheim: http://faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Durkheim/index2.htm

William James: https://www.biography.com/people/william-james-9352726

William James: https://study.com/academy/lesson/william-james-psychology-theories-lesson-quiz.html

Tania Singer references: http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Tania-Singer.htm

https://charterforcompassion.org/discovering-empathy/dr-tania-singer-and-the-neuroscience-of-empathy

Dr Amit Sood Mindfulness: https://www.mindfulleader.org/amit-sood

Dr. Harold Koenig Director, Center for Spirituality,

Theology and Health: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d

Dr. Koenig on what spirituality can do for you: https://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/health/2006/05/what-religion-can-do-for-your-health.aspx

Keith Karren – Body, Mind, Spirit:

http://pgrpdf.abhappybooks.com/mind-body-health-keith-j-karren-ph-d-pdf-5716009.pdf

E O Wilson Biodiversity: https://eowilsonfoundation.org/

E O Wilson – PBS on Ants: http://www.pbs.org/program/eo-wilson/

Anthropologist Malinowski: http://anthrotheory.wikia.com/wiki/Bronislaw_

MalinowskiSocial Anthropology – Malinowski: http://scihi.org/bronislaw-malinowski-social-anthropology/

St. Augustine (Catholic source): https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=418

St. Augustine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine

Konrad Lorenz: https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/konrad_lorenz.html

Konrad Lorenz: http://www.famouspsychologists.org/konrad-lorenz/

St. Gregory of Nyssa (Franciscan): https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-gregory-of-nyssa/

St. Gregory of Nyssa (wikiorg): https://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_of_Nyssa

Neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene: https://www.edge.org/memberbio/stanislas_dehaene

Imants Barušs, psychologist and parapsychologist: http://www.baruss.ca/

Julia Mossbridge, psychologist and parapsychologist: https://noetic.org/profile/julia-mossbridge

https://sharingthesearch.com/tag/j-mossbridge/

https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/julia-mossbridge/profile

Friedrich Nietzsche: http://nietzschecircle.com/

Nietzsche biography: https://www.biography.com/people/friedrich-nietzsche-9423452

Abraham Joshua Heschel: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abraham-joshua-heschel-a-prophets-prophet/

Iroquois:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=iroquois&FORM=IARRTH&ufn=iroquois&stid=f246343f-15e5-194e-e682-7ca31dc204a3&cbn=EntityAnswer&cbi=0&FORM=IARRTH

http://www.ushistory.org/us/1d.asp

Greek Mythology: Apollo and the Oracle of Delphi

https://www.greekmythology.com/Olympians/Apollo/apollo.html

https://www.thoughtco.com/apollo-greek-god-sun-music-prophecy-111902

http://greek-gods.info/greek-gods/apollo/

https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/oracle_of_delphi.html

https://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/7_p1.html

https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/pythia-oracle-delphi-001641

https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/pythia-oracle-delphi-001641

https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/good-vs-evil-psychology-is-not-a-science-einstein-jung-and-neuroscience-on-the-genesis-of-good-and-evil

Click Here: to easily “Return to Home Page”.

Share this:

Published by admin

Bio Psycho Social Spiritual, Addiction Recovery.

RSS
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Share
Instagram
Follow by Email