Information theory?

[Ceridwen018]

How are they objective? As I said before: If they are, which collection of atoms painted that picture? Perhaps you can shed some light on it.

I fail to see how atoms are involved in child abuse, (aside from the makeup of the participants), let alone why they would need to paint any pictures. If you could tweak your definition of "subjective external influences" I would be able to better understand--thank you.

 

[Quiddity]

I fail to see how atoms are involved in child abuse, (aside from the makeup of the participants), let alone why they would need to paint any pictures. If you could tweak your definition of "subjective external influences" I would be able to better understand--thank you.

Nope, I think you need to first explain what you think is "subjective external influences" are? If not objective, what is it?

~Victor

 

[Fatmop]

Please rovide me a link that shows which comes first: the emotion or the chemical. As of this point in time, I have not seen any link that will show this. It's not a matter of me denying science, it's a matter of science not being able to provide ALL of the answer. You have greater FAITH in science than I, and I have quite a bit. Like all things, it has it's limitations.

Netdoc, perhaps once you DEFINE THE EMOTION, we can answer your question.

How are they objective?

How is anything objective? Asking that is falling back on solipsism, and we could just as easily say that your religion is no more or less real than reality - after all, you have to believe reality exists in order to believe that the Bible you hold in your hands exists also.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Netdoc, perhaps once you DEFINE THE EMOTION, we can answer your question.

Well, you haven't done so thus far. This is just a stall technique as you try to figure a spin around the facts. There is no "Love Potion #9".

 

[Quiddity]

How is anything objective? Asking that is falling back on solipsism, and we could just as easily say that your religion is no more or less real than reality - after all, you have to believe reality exists in order to believe that the Bible you hold in your hands exists also.

What a red-herring. Next..

~Victor

 

[Fatmop]

Well, you haven't done so thus far. This is just a stall technique as you try to figure a spin around the facts. There is no "Love Potion #9".

No, you're the one stalling. All you need do is define 'love' with a real, working definition, and we can proceed to determine whether or not it is caused by neurochemical triggers. You haven't. After many, many pages, you have recalcitrantly shirked this simple responisibility: define love.

What a red-herring. Next..

I assumed that when you were taking about the objective, you meant that reality as a whole could not be assumed to be objective. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

 

[JerryL]

Determanistic? If everytime I passed by it resurrected a specific emotion I would throw determinism out the window. What then?

I have no idea what you are sayin.

Pictures in our mind are not matter are they? If they are, which collection of atoms painted that picture?

Yes, thoughts are material; composed of matter-energy located in vriousparts of your brain.

 

[JerryL]

I think the issue of how emotions originate is terribly complex. We know a little bit about it. Such as the role of some neurochemicals in creating emotions. But there does indeed seem to be room for the notion that something subjective (such as an impression) can cause something objective (such as the release of oxytocin into the bloodstream). That is, there seems to be a feedback loop of some sort between the neurochemistry of emotions and consciousness.

Much like how a logic-outcome in a circuit can turn or, or off, a pixel on the screen. Cognative actions are made up of and trigger physical response.

 

[JerryL]

Please rovide me a link that shows which comes first: the emotion or the chemical.

First I add testosterone, ten you go into a rage. First I add opium, then you feel euphoric. First I add ativan, then you feel relaxed.

Chemical, then emotion.

Wanna talk about "love"? OK, define it. Some things you may call "emotion" are cognative.

 

[Ryan2065]

I Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. NIV

Only the second paragraph deals with what love IS... Because in a definition, we only deal with what things ARE, and not what things are not, this is what I will deal with to define love for Netdoc (because he fails to do so)

Love is patient, kind, rejoyces with truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perserves...

So, when someone loves another, they have these symptoms..
They are patient with that person.
They are kind towards that person.
When that person tells the truth, they are happy.
They protect that person.
Trust that person.
Hopes for that person
And tries to preserve that person...

Did I miss any? If not, then the emotions one feels when they are in love is...
Loyality, Kindness, Trust, Protection, and Hope...

This is the best I can do given NetDoc's unwillingness to give a useful definition... So all of these emotions but "Hope" are displayed in a dogs affection towards its owner. And hope is more selfserving than one might first think it is... When human A hopes human B succeeds, is it because they really want human B to succeed or because Human A does not want to feel let down? =) Some food for thought...

Anyways, I know pretty much nothing about neural networks and what not, but I figured I could try and list the emotions that are displayed in love from NetDoc's origional post about love.

 

[Fatmop]

Anyways, I know pretty much nothing about neural networks and what not, but I figured I could try and list the emotions that are displayed in love from NetDoc's origional post about love.

Thank you. Someone had to do it. The only problem is, it should be NetDoc - because once his opponents start constructing his definitions for him, he can cry 'strawman!'

 

[Scuba Pete]

My definition was fine... as Ryan pointed out without realizing it. What is the chemical for "kindness"???

Where is my patience potion?

In it's specificity and direct attributes, you are at a loss to come up with ANYTHING that will be "Love Potion #9".

 

[Fatmop]

In it's specificity and direct attributes

But its definition? "Kindness" is not an emotion, NetDoc, nor is "patience." These are exhibited qualitites by someone (presumably) in love. Love itself is the cause of those qualities, or one of the causes, but what is the cause of love? To determine that, we need the definition of love. Why do you skirt this question so?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In it's specificity and direct attributes, you are at a loss to come up with ANYTHING that will be "Love Potion #9".

I'm at a loss as to how any of this is relevant. It does not logically follow that, because there is no magical potion that makes you fall in love, the observable symptoms of love are not the consequence of natural phenomena. In the same vein, it would be irrelevant to talk about a special "cancer potion" which immediately gives people cancer, and then conclude that, in the absence of such a potion, cancer must have nothing to do with the foods you eat, the drugs you take, etc.

It is a well-known fact that chemicals affect our emotions...little kids learn this kind of thing in health class. It's sad that educated adults who know better would derail an interesting discussion about information theory, simply for the sake of being argumentative, by making the absurd suggestion that an angry feeling causes people to take testosterone, a relaxed feeling causes people to take alcohol, etc., rather than the other way around. Yeah, and cancer causes people to smoke. :banghead:

 

[Scuba Pete]

To determine that, we need the definition of love. Why do you skirt this question so?

I don't skirt: you just don't accept my answer!

Whether you call "kindness" a quality or emotion, I still double dog dare you to produce a chemical that will create this "supernatural" phenomenon. Why do YOU skirt this issue?

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's sad that educated adults who know better would derail an interesting discussion about information theory, simply for the sake of being argumentative, by making the absurd suggestion that an angry feeling causes people to take testosterone, a relaxed feeling causes people to take alcohol, etc., rather than the other way around. Yeah, and cancer causes people to smoke. :banghead:

Great! Instead of providing the formulae, you attack my character and my motives. I will gladly bow out of this discussion before I suffer from further attacks. Have a great one!

 

[JerryL]

Anyways, I know pretty much nothing about neural networks and what not, but I figured I could try and list the emotions that are displayed in love from NetDoc's origional post about love.

Do you see the problem with attributing other emotions to an emotion?

Not that I think it's an entirely accurate set of symptoms (you've never loved someone you didn't trust? Would you love your mother if she had a brain tumor, or rabies, or alsheimers? Would you trust her then?

Regardless, as you've pointed out, they are symptoms... not the emotion. It would be like defininf influenza as "you feel run down, you have a sore throat, you want to sleep".

 

[JerryL]

Whether you call "kindness" a quality or emotion, I still double dog dare you to produce a chemical that will create this "supernatural" phenomenon. Why do YOU skirt this issue?

There is no one "kindness"... but, as pointed out, it's not an emotion but an act. As such it's cognative, and we are back into discussing how neurl networks make decisions.

For example, an auto-feeder kindly gives food to an animal when the animal runs out (assuming that the auto-feeder has food to give). Where does this kindness come from?

Great! Instead of providing the formulae, you attack my character and my motives. I will gladly bow out of this discussion before I suffer from further attacks. Have a great one!

It just proves us right. You are unwilling or unable to actually defend your position... hence why you won't replace your "symptoms of love" with a definition.

 

[Ryan2065]

Ahhh, now its a single post... make up your mind servers...

Uhh, seeing as I edited the post to say that I accidently double posted and now there is only one post with my edited message...

Long story short, JerryL, I was only giving you NetDoc's def of love, not my own. Please read what I say before you jump on me like that :tsk:

Just looking to get the conversation past
"Please provide a definition of love.."
"No"
"Please provide a definition of love..."
....

 

[JerryL]

Long story short, JerryL, I was only giving you NetDoc's def of love, not my own. Please read what I say before you jump on me like that :tsk:

I'm not aware that I jumped on you.