Information theory?

[Scuba Pete]

It is possible to prove that he does exist. All he has to do is show himself, then bam, he exists. =)

He tried this 2,000 years ago and still the scoffers scoffed. You can't make things idiot proof, because idiots are so ingeneous! Your concept of proof is flawed, and I am out of time. Ginnie Springs, here I come. See you peeps Monday!

 

[Scott1]

Make no mistake about it.. If the spiritual interacts at all with the physical, then it can be tested.

Now THIS would be cool..... the FAITHOMETER 3000! by Ronco

I bet I would score WAY higher than NetDoc!

 

[Ryan2065]

He tried this 2,000 years ago and still the scoffers scoffed. You can't make things idiot proof, because idiots are so ingeneous! Your concept of proof is flawed, and I am out of time. Ginnie Springs, here I come. See you peeps Monday!

My concept of proof is not flawed... Or are you saying that it is impossible for god (the all powerful) to prove his existance to us? :jiggy:

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scott, I think they would use yours as a fan... my faith would be hard to even measure! It's only the size of a mustard seed.

 

[JerryL]

Any chance of a useful definition of love, or support that there's a supernatural cause for emotions?

 

[Bea Ond]

Now THIS would be cool..... the FAITHOMETER 3000! by Ronco

I bet I would score WAY higher than NetDoc!

I saw something like that online when I was surfing. The Amazing Online God-O-Meter

sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Jerry,

My definition of love is quite useful to me. You don't have to accept it, but when you give me a pill that will replicate I Corinthians 13 in my life, then I will buy into your little theory. I am sorry that the definition is a bit too daunting for you.

 

[JerryL]

My definition of love is quite useful to me.

Obviously not, or we would not be having this discussion. It seems as though you are unwilling to clarify. I can only suspect it's out of a fear that providing me with a testable definition would allow me to show you that you are wrong.

Definition: the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear.

But let's continue to cover the alternate tack. Establish that "love" is supernatural (and thereby not physical nor the result of physical phenomina).

 

[Fatmop]

My definition of love is quite useful to me. You don't have to accept it, but when you give me a pill that will replicate I Corinthians 13 in my life, then I will buy into your little theory. I am sorry that the definition is a bit too daunting for you.

As a matter of fact, that definition is a bit too daunting for anyone using the scientific method. It is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Jerry has repeatedly asked you to provide a definition of the emotion 'love' that can be pinned down to testability. You have failed to define love, and therefore are making unreasonable requests and unfalsifiable statements. It is unreasonable to request that Jerry provide a pill that can replicate "love does not lie," because that is not a working definition.

Can I make this any clearer? Jerry has tried to. You provided with Corinthians a description of the effects of love - not a definition of what love actually IS. That's why Jerry keeps asking the same question and is not satisfied with you quoting scripture - the scripture, while it may even be true, does not apply to this argument.

 

[Quiddity]

The entire process is determanistic. There are causes. It might be looking at a cemetary, or it might be something you ate, or it migh be an erronious reliease caused by a flu you have, or a lack of sleep, or any of a million other things.
But yes, they are caused.

Determanistic? If everytime I passed by it resurrected a specific emotion I would throw determinism out the window. What then? Pictures in our mind are not matter are they? If they are, which collection of atoms painted that picture?

~Victor

 

[Ceridwen018]

The more esoteric emotions (love, hate, etc) or actions {deciet, veracity, etc) have no clear cut chemical that can CAUSE them.

NetDoc, you just blatantly made a statement that you cannot back up whatsoever. How, exactly, do you know that "love, hate, etc." are not controlled by the brain? Modern neurological research disagrees with you, by the by, but that's not even the point here. Even if there was no empirical evidence to contest this outlandish claim of yours, you would still have no business making it. Just because you have never personally read anything to suggest the contrary, doesn't mean that your theory is correct.

we even have a hard time defining what "love" is. Why? It's spiritual, and you can't devine the spiritual aspect of humanity with science.

Its not spritual. The feelings that we label as "spiritual" are derived from it, but it in and of itself is not spiritual. (sources to follow at the end of post).

since it pokes a HUGE hole in the illusion that science has all the answers.

Since everyone is claiming that and all...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/index.shtml
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/emotion/

Happy reading.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dear Ceridwen,

I "blatantly make"statements which I believe in. However, niether of your links have proven anything to the contrary. One has provided many "questions" they are hoping to answer but have as of yet given any real insight into the issues and the other has provided a pop-science explanation with nothing to back up their contentions.

 

[Sunstone]

How is it possible in this day and age to believe that neurochemistry has nothing to do with our emotions? Is that what's being asserted here?

 

[Quiddity]

How is it possible in this day and age to believe that neurochemistry has nothing to do with our emotions? Is that what's being asserted here?

I'm sure not proposing that. What I am saying is that something subjective can trigger something objective.

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

I'm sure not proposing that. What I am saying is that something subjective can trigger something objective.

~Victor

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.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

At least your open to it. I personally think the room is larger then one may think.

~Victor

 

[Fatmop]

However, niether of your links have proven anything to the contrary. One has provided many "questions" they are hoping to answer but have as of yet given any real insight into the issues and the other has provided a pop-science explanation with nothing to back up their contentions.

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. There is no falsifying belief. However, there IS a way to falsify a theory or a hypothesis - and the hypothesis in question is that of emotions and their neurochemical causes. Specifically, that of love. You could be engaged in a debate to determine the validity of that hypothesis; instead you hide behind your religion.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I "blatantly make"statements which I believe in.

That's just fine, NetDoc. Do you want me to find you sites with more "backing", because I can do that. Are you sure this is an issue of "backing" and not something else? I am afraid that no matter what site I post, you will continue to deny the scientific evidence in favor of what you want to believe, however, if you desire more sites, I have them on hand.

As for what Victor and Sunstone are talking about, it is quite true that certain exterior factors can influence the complex workings of the brain. Things like early childhood abuse, for instance, can lead to a lifelong battle with depression that that person would not have had to deal with otherwise. These external variables, by definition, are still basically objective though. At the very least, they cannot be considered supernatural or spiritual.

 

[Quiddity]

These external variables, by definition, are still basically objective though. At the very least, they cannot be considered supernatural or spiritual.

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.
~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ceridwen,

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.