143 replies to this topic

[vbnautilus]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 2:34 PM, said:

if a scientist were measuring the bio-chemistry of someone experiencing love the scientist would be unable to distinguish where love began. love would be an arbitrary measurement. it would be a theorem unprovable by science. agree?

disagree. love has a distinct and identifiable pattern of hormonal and neural correlates.

[navybuttons]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 2:43 PM, said:

love has a distinct and identifiable pattern of hormonal and neural correlates.

who decides when it's "love"?

[vbnautilus]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 2:55 PM, said:

who decides when it's "love"?

well for example I can tell with decent accuracy from your brain activity whether you are loving or hating what you are looking at. it doesn't only exist subjectively.

[navybuttons]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 2:59 PM, said:

well for example I can tell with decent accuracy from your brain activity whether you are loving or hating what you are looking at. it doesn't only exist subjectively.

but the distinction is subjective, no?

[antistuff]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 6:05 PM, said:

but the distinction is subjective, no?

i think it just seems that way because we use words to describe it. describe it in terms of whats going on in your body biologically and it becomes objective.

[navybuttons]

antistuff, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 3:13 PM, said:

i think it just seems that way because we use words to describe it. describe it in terms of whats going on in your body biologically and it becomes objective.

is it any different if we measure an individual's bio-chemistry as they think about divinity?

[antistuff]

get to what youre getting at before you trick me into saying something stupid

[navybuttons]

i'm getting at that we can't "prove" love. we can say that humans experience emotions, but any distinction regarding such emotion is more-or-less arbitrary. and yet love is something that most of us feel and experience. to the completely objective scientist there is no such thing as love, there are just -bio-chemical reactions to stimulus. this is like theism vs. atheism. the theist often experiences god on a personal level while the atheist believes there is no scientific proof only bio-chemical reactions to stimulus.edit: i believe the athiest also experiences the work of god, but they fail to recognize it or they call it something else.

[Balloon guy]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 2:55 PM, said:

who decides when it's "love"?

[vbnautilus]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 3:05 PM, said:

but the distinction is subjective, no?

No, someone in love will behave towards their loved one in an objectively identifiable way. It's independently verifiable whether you love or hate someone. There's no such thing as "feeling" detached from a behavior, but even if they were, feelings can be observed from the outside too (that's how we win at poker).

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 3:22 PM, said:

is it any different if we measure an individual's bio-chemistry as they think about divinity?

I'm still working on that one.

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 3:57 PM, said:

i'm getting at that we can't "prove" love. we can say that humans experience emotions, but any distinction regarding such emotion is more-or-less arbitrary. and yet love is something that most of us feel and experience. to the completely objective scientist there is no such thing as love, there are just -bio-chemical reactions to stimulus.

This could be said about any cognitive state, but its just a matter of level of description. For example, we can talk about "water" while a chemist can tell us that water is really two hydrogens and an oxygen. Its really just two ways of talking about the same thing. You can talk about "pleasure" or about the pattern of neurons firing in your nucleus accumbens -- again, its two ways of talking about the same thing. Water is "just" H20. When we explain something scientifically we don't necessarily lose the original level of description. Love is still love even when it is biochemical.

[crowTrobot]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 3:57 PM, said:

i'm getting at that we can't "prove" love.

we certainly can if you define specifically what you mean by love instead of just using the term in a vaguemanner that presupposes it's something metaphysical.

Quote

we can say that humans experience emotions, but any distinction regarding such emotion is more-or-less arbitrary.

obviously false.

Quote

to the completely objective scientist there is no such thing as love, there are just -bio-chemical reactions to stimulus.

to any completely objective person there is no reason to think love is something beyond a word we use to describe bio-chemical/behavioral reactions. convincingyourself it has to be something metaphysical is just another manifestation of religious egocentrism.

[navybuttons]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 4:50 PM, said:

This could be said about any cognitive state, but its just a matter of level of description. For example, we can talk about "water" while a chemist can tell us that water is really two hydrogens and an oxygen. Its really just two ways of talking about the same thing. You can talk about "pleasure" or about the pattern of neurons firing in your nucleus accumbens -- again, its two ways of talking about the same thing. Water is "just" H20.

is it possible that saying "god" is another way of saying "universe?" edit: i shouldn't have tried to rename God. I believe it's more accurate to say "unvierse" is a portion of "God's work."

crowTrobot, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 4:59 PM, said:

we certainly can if you define specifically what you mean by love instead of just using the term in a vaguemanner that presupposes it's something metaphysical.

define love.

crowTrobot, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 4:59 PM, said:

obviously false.

if we plotted the emotions of 1000 people, you believe there would be a way to objectively distinguish differences and label them?

[vbnautilus]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 5:16 PM, said:

is it possible that saying "god" is another way of saying "universe?"

if you like. but most people use 'god' to mean something more than just 'universe'

[crowTrobot]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 5:16 PM, said:

define love.

i just said what love is. certain biochemical reactions and the behavior that emerges from it. you're the one being vague.i'm assuming you think it would lessen it in some way if that's all there is to it, so there has to be something more.

Quote

if we plotted the emotions of 1000 people, you believe there would be a way to objectively distinguish differences and label them?

absolutely. in fact scientists can predict what a person is "feeling" just by looking atvarious patterns of brain stimulation.

[Spademan]

This is quickly deteriorating into semantic stupidity. We've been down this road before, navy. Your Socratic nebulous ambiguous floating definition questions game isn't quite as profound, clever, insightful or thought provoking as you may think.

[navybuttons]

crowTrobot, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 5:34 PM, said:

i just said what love is. certain biochemical reactions and the behavior that emerges from it. you're the one being vague.i'm assuming you think it would lessen it in some way if that's all there is to it, so there has to be something more.absolutely. in fact scientists can predict what a person is "feeling" just by looking atvarious patterns of brain stimulation.

if you were given this chart, how would you objectively distinguish where love is? this is mostly in response to saying that distinction is not arbitrary. i realize at this point, i'm getting silly, and admittedly, this debate has not gone as i would have hoped. i try to stay out of religious debate where little can be learned. and any further debate along this course will probably result in language deconstruction games.my main point is that with regards to many things, emotion being one, we believe in them because we experience them first hand. their title and distinction are arbitrary even if your mind is still too tightly bound by language to see so. "universe" vs. "god" falls along the same lines. one person's distinctions could be way different than another's.and my main goal is to encourage the curious not to let the dogma of a certain religion sour your search for something higher.

[navybuttons]

Spademan, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 5:36 PM, said:

Your Socratic nebulous ambiguous floating definition questions game isn't quite as profound, clever, insightful or thought provoking as you may think.

i agree that this game has not been very profound, clever, or insightful. but it remains that you seemingly dislike people and i love everyone. you seem angry while i feel at peace. shouldn't that be thought provoking?

[Spademan]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 5:09 PM, said:

but it remains that you seemingly dislike people and i love everyone. you seem angry while i feel at peace. shouldn't that be thought provoking?

No. As everything is not always as it seems.For one who projects a "meanings behind words" kind of image, you sure are missing a lot of the meaning.I can tell you that being "at peace" is what I do best.I can tell you that most people are relatively stupid. That does not necessitate dislike. I can tell you that when people say they "love everyone" I am unimpressed with their concept of love, since their love is so obtuse and general as to include people they don't know. Including, you know, child rapists and people who change lanes without signaling.

[antistuff]

navybuttons, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 9:09 PM, said:

i agree that this game has not been very profound, clever, or insightful. but it remains that you seemingly dislike people and i love everyone. you seem angry while i feel at peace. shouldn't that be thought provoking?

the idea of universal compassion is a nice onethe idea of loving everybody...even i'm not that slutty

[navybuttons]

Spademan, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 6:19 PM, said:

you sure are missing a lot of the meaning.

that's what i try to do best.

Spademan, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 6:19 PM, said:

I am unimpressed with their concept of love, since their love is so obtuse and general as to include people they don't know.

i love those i don't know not for who they are but for their potential. i do not need to have first hand knowledge of someone's actions to know of what they are capable of. i believe that each individual is as biologically capable as the buddha or aristotle and i can love them for that potential.

Spademan, on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009, 6:19 PM, said:

obtuse

whoops, sorry.