Oh I see, well your hypothesis violates the conservation of energy by stating that the emergent property, or experience of love, is greater than the sum of it's parts.
"I am pointing out that while it has a chemical basis, common sense shows us that our experience of being in love, including any of it's outcome like kissing or making love--the experience in life, happening like a play, is much beyond the chemical alone"
What is the basis for assuming that the experience of love is greater than the sum of it's parts?
Ah, but you misunderstand my friend. I say that rather, you are overlooking some glaring variables: Such as the human experiencing the love; the interaction with one person experiencing love, with another person being the object of love, etc. They are clearly beyond the brain chemical. They may HAVE brain chemicals, but they themselves do not spring from them--they are independent variables. I am further talking about the act or experience of love that naturally emerges from the chemicals. People start to act out experiences in reality. Surely you must agree that these experiences are no longer the brain chemicals. When two lips touch during an act of love, we must take into consideration the actions that play out in space-time and the three dimensions, correct?
I'm telling you, I am talking specifically ONLY about the physical, observable phenomena and not even of synergy. I am pointing out the numerous variables people are unconscious of when talking theory, in this instance, anyway. What is unconscious is not hidden. It is right before our eyes. We merely deny what we have not learned to harmonize with in our understanding. The actions involved in the experience of love are a HUGE part of the empirical data you speak so highly of. Lets not forget them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No they wouldn't. OLS, I mean this in the nicest way, I think your knowledge of cognition and the human brain is extremely limited. No two brains are ever identical and no two experiences are either.
no disrespect intended but i think you read too much. for every study you come up with; there are others from just as qualified people presenting a different view.
for example; there are several scientists that can scientificly prove global warming. there are also scientists that can prove the earth is moving into an ice age. the evidence in both cases is quite compelling. the baby-boomers flooded colleges to get out of vietnam. in the '70s; i worked in a machine shop with more PHD's than i remember. at age 18 i was their foreman. i set up the machines. i made the decisions. the point is that we have thousands of "qualified" people making opinions. many in direct conflict with eachother. each backed with scientific evidence.
i look at it and say it proves that we really don't know much about the brain. you seem to pick the opinion that best suits your beliefs. i refered to your captioned opinion as the rantings of a madman. the guy sounds nuts to me. he doesn't include variables. his study was based on what; .01% of the worlds population? and it doesn't include cross references with the brains of animals comparing the similarities and differences. if we are truely just animals or organisms; and; if we all evolved from the same organism; the similarities must be endless.
i'm getting winded here but 1 more point. i could write a paper showing that an armed society is a polite society. i have a control group to base that decision on and above all; it works here. it works and has worked here since the railroad came through in the mid 1800s. you won't agree. i have proof positive evidence but you won't believe it. it is in fact my opinion based on the evidence presented to me through the study of human behavior; but only a small (2000 people) test group.
Ah, but you misunderstand my friend. I say that rather, you are overlooking some glaring variables: Such as the human experiencing the love; the interaction with one person experiencing love, with another person being the object of love, etc. They are clearly beyond the brain chemical. They may HAVE brain chemicals, but they themselves do not spring from them--they are independent variables. I am further talking about the act or experience of love that naturally emerges from the chemicals. People start to act out experiences in reality. Surely you must agree that these experiences are no longer the brain chemicals. When two lips touch during an act of love, we must take into consideration the actions that play out in space-time and the three dimensions, correct?
I'm telling you, I am talking specifically ONLY about the physical, observable phenomena and not even of synergy. I am pointing out the numerous variables people are unconscious of when talking theory, in this instance, anyway. What is unconscious is not hidden. It is right before our eyes. We merely deny what we have not learned to harmonize with in our understanding. The actions involved in the experience of love are a HUGE part of the empirical data you speak so highly of. Lets not forget them.
Umm two people kissing causes brain chemical surges which causes the experience of Love. I'm not missing a thing. Sounds like you can't make the connection between the acts of love and the experience of love.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no disrespect intended but i think you read too much. for every study you come up with; there are others from just as qualified people presenting a different view.
for example; there are several scientists that can scientificly prove global warming. there are also scientists that can prove the earth is moving into an ice age. the evidence in both cases is quite compelling. the baby-boomers flooded colleges to get out of vietnam. in the '70s; i worked in a machine shop with more PHD's than i remember. at age 18 i was their foreman. i set up the machines. i made the decisions. the point is that we have thousands of "qualified" people making opinions. many in direct conflict with eachother. each backed with scientific evidence.
i look at it and say it proves that we really don't know much about the brain. you seem to pick the opinion that best suits your beliefs. i refered to your captioned opinion as the rantings of a madman. the guy sounds nuts to me. he doesn't include variables. his study was based on what; .01% of the worlds population? and it doesn't include cross references with the brains of animals comparing the similarities and differences. if we are truely just animals or organisms; and; if we all evolved from the same organism; the similarities must be endless.
i'm getting winded here but 1 more point. i could write a paper showing that an armed society is a polite society. i have a control group to base that decision on and above all; it works here. it works and has worked here since the railroad came through in the mid 1800s. you won't agree. i have proof positive evidence but you won't believe it. it is in fact my opinion based on the evidence presented to me through the study of human behavior; but only a small (2000 people) test group.
Umm, Global Warming is a fact and we are headed towards an ice-age. It's just the way it is, and scientists do not agree on that.
Cross reference with animals? Are you serious? Animals do not have the frontal lobe of the brain, the part of the brain that is unique to humans, that is the part I was discussing. Cross referencing with nothing would serve no purpose.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Umm two people kissing causes brain chemical surges which causes the experience of Love. I'm not missing a thing. Sounds like you can't make the connection between the acts of love and the experience of love.
This is a tomato/tomahto thing. Whatever we call it, it's still a tomato. Acting something out in life, to me, is an experience. For example, I would like the experience of going to a PJ concert. For you that might be ONLY about chemicals in your head. For me, it would be about the chemicals in my head and far beyond that, such as being and about the people I am with, and the bonds I have made with them through all my relations with them. It would be about financial stuff. It would be about seeing a band whose influence on me goes back to my drunken-stupor bar days, where I was essentially unconscious to life and joining others in degrading myself in all kinds of inhuman ways. It would be about this band that hooked a part of me beyond all that--a part buried deep within me....my intelligence. And on and on and on. Beyond the brain chemical, for me it would be about my actions, and the thoughts and feelings that were woven throughout all my life experiences. If your experiences all only seem to occur in your mind only, I'm thinking you might be missing out on the empirical aspects of your life.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Umm two people kissing causes brain chemical surges which causes the experience of Love. I'm not missing a thing. Sounds like you can't make the connection between the acts of love and the experience of love.
if this is true; then animals must experience love too. they have the same chemical surges.
This is a tomato/tomahto thing. Whatever we call it, it's still a tomato. Acting something out in life, to me, is an experience. For example, I would like the experience of going to a PJ concert. For you that might be ONLY about chemicals in your head. For me, it would be about the chemicals in my head and far beyond that, such as being and about the people I am with, and the bonds I have made with them through all my relations with them. It would be about financial stuff. It would be about seeing a band whose influence on me goes back to my drunken-stupor bar days, where I was essentially unconscious to life and joining others in degrading myself in all kinds of inhuman ways. It would be about this band that hooked a part of me beyond all that--a part buried deep within me....my intelligence. And on and on and on. Beyond the brain chemical, for me it would be about my actions, and the thoughts and feelings that were woven throughout all my life experiences. If your experiences all only seem to occur in your mind only, I'm thinking you might be missing out on the empirical aspects of your life.
So, basically you know how it works, but you want to attribute experience to something "Far beyond" chemicals in order to glorify experience?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
if this is true; then animals must experience love too. they have the same chemical surges.
Certainly they do. The only thing they lack is the executive seat/frontal lobe that is unique to humans. So there experiences are different. But never-the-less they do experience love.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, basically you know how it works, but you want to attribute experience to something "Far beyond" chemicals in order to glorify experience?
Ahnimus, in a word, NO. I am attributing experience to experience. Remember, I am only talking about what is empirical, in terms that we can all observe it. If you are kissing a girl that you love, you are experiencing love through your brain chemistry, and you are also experiencing love by your lips touching hers, and maybe other stuff. Your lips touching the girls lips, among other things, is beyond the chemical. The chemical experience maybe correlate, and yet the physical experience of the person in space time is an extremely valid component that just IS more than a chemical. A man is more than a chemical. A woman is more than a chemical. Do you see that the brain chemistry correlate is woven into the actions in space-time? And yet, they still remain separate. You aren't suggesting we eliminate the space-time part of the equation, but it sounds like you are not factoring it in.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, in a word, NO. I am attributing experience to experience. Remember, I am only talking about what is empirical, in terms that we can all observe it. If you are kissing a girl that you love, you are experiencing love through your brain chemistry, and you are also experiencing love by your lips touching hers, and maybe other stuff. Your lips touching the girls lips, among other things, is beyond the chemical. The chemical experience maybe correlate, and yet the physical experience of the person in space time is an extremely valid component that just IS more than a chemical. A man is more than a chemical. A woman is more than a chemical. Do you see that the brain chemistry correlate is woven into the actions in space-time? And yet, they still remain separate. You aren't suggesting we eliminate the space-time part of the equation, but it sounds like you are not factoring it in.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea circular logic. You cannot attribute an apple to an apple, or an orange to an orange. You attribute the apple to the apple tree, and the apple tree to the apple seed, and so on. Experience cannot be attributed to experience. It's circular reasoning. If it were true, you could make something out of nothing.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Umm, Global Warming is a fact and we are headed towards an ice-age. It's just the way it is, and scientists do not agree on that.
Cross reference with animals? Are you serious? Animals do not have the frontal lobe of the brain, the part of the brain that is unique to humans, that is the part I was discussing. Cross referencing with nothing would serve no purpose.
and thus you admitt that the study is narrow minded. aimed only at a section of brain and not the brain experience.
the cross reference is necessary. because we're on the subject of love; one must cross reference the difference between the human need to reproduce vs an aminals need to reproduce. if we find the human need in the front lobe; and animals don't have that front lobe yet accomplish the same goal; how is this done? why are we different and what makes us different? if we evolved from the same organism how and why do different brains function differently? why do we both look at the same thing and see something completely different? these are the questions i need answered to put stock in the study. otherwise it's just another clown's opinion.
another example: you may look at a piece of swiss cheeze and see and sense food. i however look at it as garbage and would never put something that smelled like shit into my mouth. yet all mice would look at it as food.
Yea circular logic. You cannot attribute an apple to an apple, or an orange to an orange. You attribute the apple to the apple tree, and the apple tree to the apple seed, and so on. Experience cannot be attributed to experience. It's circular reasoning. If it were true, you could make something out of nothing.
yet everything in life is circular. the circle or cycle of life.
life>death>decomposition> (to feed new life)> then life from the decompsition.
Yea circular logic. You cannot attribute an apple to an apple, or an orange to an orange. You attribute the apple to the apple tree, and the apple tree to the apple seed, and so on. Experience cannot be attributed to experience. It's circular reasoning. If it were true, you could make something out of nothing.
Okay, you are not understanding what I am saying. If I kiss someone there is a brain chemical response. No matter how I look at it, the kiss is a part of the equation. As well as the brain chemical response. They are two sides of the same coin. That is just fact. Do you agree? Do you agree, that in terms of a kiss, and the brain chemistry response, that if I take the kiss part out, I've distorted the equation? It's like I'm saying 1+1=2. And then you are saying no, 1=2. We need both sides of the coin in order to have the coin.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
and thus you admitt that the study is narrow minded. aimed only at a section of brain and not the brain experience.
the cross reference is necessary. because we're on the subject of love; one must cross reference the difference between the human need to reproduce vs an aminals need to reproduce. if we find the human need in the front lobe; and animals don't have that front lobe yet accomplish the same goal; how is this done? why are we different and what makes us different? if we evolved from the same organism how and why do different brains function differently? why do we both look at the same thing and see something completely different? these are the questions i need answered to put stock in the study. otherwise it's just another clown's opinion.
another example: you may look at a piece of swiss cheeze and see and sense food. i however look at it as garbage and would never put something that smelled like shit into my mouth. yet all mice would look at it as food.
Did you attend highschool?
Color is different, because of the difference in retina. I mean, all the answers you seek are common knowledge.
The amygdala is the centre for love, it's part of the reptilian brain. The frontal lobe provides long-term planning and forethought. Something like social trust and romantic love may not exist in all animals for that reason. So in an animal like a lizard you may have chemical bonding, in the human you have chemical bonding and forethought.
Anyway, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. Just stick with your logic "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists."
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Color is different, because of the difference in retina. I mean, all the answers you seek are common knowledge.
The amygdala is the centre for love, it's part of the reptilian brain. The frontal lobe provides long-term planning and forethought. Something like social trust and romantic love may not exist in all animals for that reason. So in an animal like a lizard you may have chemical bonding, in the human you have chemical bonding and forethought.
Anyway, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. Just stick with your logic "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists."
that's not my point nor did i say that. it went right over your head; challenged you and you folded with the usual athiestic answer.
the bible was written by man and i put very little stock in it. however; there are too many coincidences to blame the diversity of life on a roll of the dice.
that's not my point nor did i say that. it went right over your head; challenged you and you folded with the usual athiestic answer.
the bible was written by man and i put very little stock in it. however; there are too many coincidences to blame the diversity of life on a roll of the dice.
so we'll agree to disagree. have a good weekend.
What coincidences? What roll of the dice? There is nothing of the sort.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
that's not my point nor did i say that. it went right over your head; challenged you and you folded with the usual athiestic answer.
the bible was written by man and i put very little stock in it. however; there are too many coincidences to blame the diversity of life on a roll of the dice.
so we'll agree to disagree. have a good weekend.
Got it from David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Psychology 4th Edition" on page 156, it reads:
"... all the neurons a person will ever have - some 100 to 200 billion of them - have already formed by the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, before the brain growth spurt has even begun (Kolb & Fantie, 1989; Rakic, 1991)
Meanwhile, the process of synaptogensis - the formation of synaptic connections among neurons - proceeds rapidly during the brain growth spurt. This brings us to one of the more interesting facts about the developing nervous system: The average infant has far more neurons and neural connections than adults do. The reason is that neurons that successfully interconnect with other neurons crowd out those that don't, so that about half the neurons produced early in life also die early in life (Janowsky & Finlay, 1986)"
The way I see it, that's a learning process, like evolution. Not a static process like design. The complexity of the brain is developed through collecting signal data and creating bonds with them and applying neurons to interpret them.
The way the brain develops is not coincidental, nor is it a roll of dice (which isn't really random). It's a system that tries everything and finds what works. Not design, not coincidence, not random. Learning.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Okay, you are not understanding what I am saying. If I kiss someone there is a brain chemical response. No matter how I look at it, the kiss is a part of the equation. As well as the brain chemical response. They are two sides of the same coin. That is just fact. Do you agree? Do you agree, that in terms of a kiss, and the brain chemistry response, that if I take the kiss part out, I've distorted the equation? It's like I'm saying 1+1=2. And then you are saying no, 1=2. We need both sides of the coin in order to have the coin.
And don't forget about this one.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yea yea, the kiss is the stimulus. Yea, I'm not discrediting that, I'm just excluding it as obvious. I didn't think that needed to be addressed.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I appreciate your concern. Let me explain a little bit... I believe if the majority of human beings had only themselves and others to believe in, that this planet is "it" and there is nothing else that the majority would be out only for themselves and the violence and destruction would be much greater.
I realize that much of it, the violence, comes from beliefs, specifically religious beliefs, but I am still willing to say without these beliefs in a greater being or spirituality that everything would be much worse. What's to stop people??
Just thought I would post this because I think religion and faith gets a certain rap (even on this board-shocking, I know) sometimes, but is very good for many people.
hmm...... so in other words some people who have a religion are only helping others and not being vilolent because they were told to do so by bible or god...hmmm....
i don't have a religion, yet i do help and try to be nice to everyone, just because i want to do the right thing and leave in peace
Yea yea, the kiss is the stimulus. Yea, I'm not discrediting that, I'm just excluding it as obvious. I didn't think that needed to be addressed.
It needs to be addressed when ignoring it causes distortion in what we are talking about. ie: 1=2 is not accurate.
This our complementarity, Ahnimus. It's understandable that we are wired to prefer certain ways, or schools of thought. I lean towards tuning out the brain chemical part and you lean towards tuning out the space-time action part. On this subject, earlier you said: 'you want to attribute experience to something "Far beyond" chemicals in order to glorify experience'. You were inaccurate. I was trying to show you something perfectly logical that you were leaving out of the equation. You said I was using circular logic, when I was using simple observation and logic, the cornerstones of science. You said: "... your hypothesis violates the conservation of energy by stating that the emergent property, or experience of love, is greater than the sum of it's parts." And due to your denial of those variables that existed in the equation, and that I eventually detailed in numerous ways, you distorted what you were hearing me say. You did not hear what I did actually say. By you automatically assuming I'm being illogical because I am spiritual, even despite many protestations that I refer purely to the physical, you are prevented yourself from hearing what I was saying.
My view complementsyour view. I focus much of my intelligence on what you naturally pay little attention to and therefore I've honed some valid wisdom there. I am pointing out to you something you are not paying attention to, because I see you are missing something valid. I'm not pulling rank. I'm not being an egotist. I'm adding complementary and new, valid information to the topic.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It needs to be addressed when ignoring it causes distortion in what we are talking about. ie: 1=2 is not accurate.
This our complementarity, Ahnimus. It's understandable that we are wired to prefer certain ways, or schools of thought. I lean towards tuning out the brain chemical part and you lean towards tuning out the space-time action part. On this subject, earlier you said: 'you want to attribute experience to something "Far beyond" chemicals in order to glorify experience'. You were inaccurate. I was trying to show you something perfectly logical that you were leaving out of the equation. You said I was using circular logic, when I was using simple observation and logic, the cornerstones of science. You said: "... your hypothesis violates the conservation of energy by stating that the emergent property, or experience of love, is greater than the sum of it's parts." And due to your denial of those variables that existed in the equation, and that I eventually detailed in numerous ways, you distorted what you were hearing me say. You did not hear what I did actually say. By you automatically assuming I'm being illogical because I am spiritual, even despite many protestations that I refer purely to the physical, you are prevented yourself from hearing what I was saying.
My view complementsyour view. I focus much of my intelligence on what you naturally pay little attention to and therefore I've honed some valid wisdom there. I am pointing out to you something you are not paying attention to, because I see you are missing something valid. I'm not pulling rank. I'm not being an egotist. I'm adding complementary and new, valid information to the topic.
Ok, just please refrain from using phrases like "far beyond" try not to make it sound like some thing is greater than the sum of it's parts. The experience of love is not "far beyond" the biochemistry that causes it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, just please refrain from using phrases like "far beyond" try not to make it sound like some thing is greater than the sum of it's parts. The experience of love is not "far beyond" the biochemistry that causes it.
I am meeting you at your map of the world as best I can.
I disagree with you on this aspect. I can meet you at your map of the world, but I am still me and I can only agree when I agree. this is why I only ask you to agree with me when you genuinely do. It's crucial that we are both authentic to ourselves, while attempting to see eye to eye. I see it as: far beyond. I believe the thoughts, feelings, actions, and the 3-d experience of love in space-time is far beyond the brain chemical. Just like the painting of the Mona Lisa is far beyond red, yellow and blue paint.
I am willing to do what I can to see eye to eye, without compromising myself. Are you willing to accept the ways I am different from you, even if you don't always agree or understand?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I am meeting you at your map of the world as best I can.
I disagree with you on this aspect. I can meet you at your map of the world, but I am still me and I can only agree when I agree. this is why I only ask you to agree with me when you genuinely do. It's crucial that we are both authentic to ourselves, while attempting to see eye to eye. I see it as: far beyond. I believe the thoughts, feelings, actions, and the 3-d experience of love in space-time is far beyond the brain chemical. Just like the painting of the Mona Lisa is far beyond red, yellow and blue paint.
I am willing to do what I can to see eye to eye, without compromising myself. Are you willing to accept the ways I am different from you, even if you don't always agree or understand?
i think he thinks you're talking about the love of "emotions"... the one that causes all those chemicals in your brain... or whatever.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I am meeting you at your map of the world as best I can.
I disagree with you on this aspect. I can meet you at your map of the world, but I am still me and I can only agree when I agree. this is why I only ask you to agree with me when you genuinely do. It's crucial that we are both authentic to ourselves, while attempting to see eye to eye. I see it as: far beyond. I believe the thoughts, feelings, actions, and the 3-d experience of love in space-time is far beyond the brain chemical. Just like the painting of the Mona Lisa is far beyond red, yellow and blue paint.
I am willing to do what I can to see eye to eye, without compromising myself. Are you willing to accept the ways I am different from you, even if you don't always agree or understand?
I thought this forum was about debate, not accepting each other's point of view.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I thought this forum was about debate, not accepting each other's point of view.
Debate is of course perfectly acceptable if that is what both parties choose. I'm talking more about in a case like this where we have debated it, and we've hit a point where we just see it differently with little seeming room for movement as it stands. I see it as "far beyond" and you apparently do not. You can ask me to use a different way of saying it, and I would be compromising inauthentically if I were to do so. So on that issue, there isn't a way for headway at this point. If you had new information that influenced me, that might be different. So until we make real progress, the truth is we see what we see, and I think acceptance is a good way to deal with that. You may think differently.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Debate is of course perfectly acceptable if that is what both parties choose. I'm talking more about in a case like this where we have debated it, and we've hit a point where we just see it differently with little seeming room for movement as it stands. I see it as "far beyond" and you apparently do not. You can ask me to use a different way of saying it, and I would be compromising inauthentically if I were to do so. So on that issue, there isn't a way for headway at this point. If you had new information that influenced me, that might be different. So until we make real progress, the truth is we see what we see, and I think acceptance is a good way to deal with that. You may think differently.
Then explain how it is far beyond? The difference in view point is a result of difference in knowledge. Explain to me what you know that causes you to believe it's "far beyond".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Then explain how it is far beyond? The difference in view point is a result of difference in knowledge. Explain to me what you know that causes you to believe it's "far beyond".
Okay, I didn't realize you don't yet realize what I am saying. I'm going to the store and stuff, so I'll explain later when I'm back.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
I'm telling you, I am talking specifically ONLY about the physical, observable phenomena and not even of synergy. I am pointing out the numerous variables people are unconscious of when talking theory, in this instance, anyway. What is unconscious is not hidden. It is right before our eyes. We merely deny what we have not learned to harmonize with in our understanding. The actions involved in the experience of love are a HUGE part of the empirical data you speak so highly of. Lets not forget them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
no disrespect intended but i think you read too much. for every study you come up with; there are others from just as qualified people presenting a different view.
for example; there are several scientists that can scientificly prove global warming. there are also scientists that can prove the earth is moving into an ice age. the evidence in both cases is quite compelling. the baby-boomers flooded colleges to get out of vietnam. in the '70s; i worked in a machine shop with more PHD's than i remember. at age 18 i was their foreman. i set up the machines. i made the decisions. the point is that we have thousands of "qualified" people making opinions. many in direct conflict with eachother. each backed with scientific evidence.
i look at it and say it proves that we really don't know much about the brain. you seem to pick the opinion that best suits your beliefs. i refered to your captioned opinion as the rantings of a madman. the guy sounds nuts to me. he doesn't include variables. his study was based on what; .01% of the worlds population? and it doesn't include cross references with the brains of animals comparing the similarities and differences. if we are truely just animals or organisms; and; if we all evolved from the same organism; the similarities must be endless.
i'm getting winded here but 1 more point. i could write a paper showing that an armed society is a polite society. i have a control group to base that decision on and above all; it works here. it works and has worked here since the railroad came through in the mid 1800s. you won't agree. i have proof positive evidence but you won't believe it. it is in fact my opinion based on the evidence presented to me through the study of human behavior; but only a small (2000 people) test group.
Umm two people kissing causes brain chemical surges which causes the experience of Love. I'm not missing a thing. Sounds like you can't make the connection between the acts of love and the experience of love.
Umm, Global Warming is a fact and we are headed towards an ice-age. It's just the way it is, and scientists do not agree on that.
Cross reference with animals? Are you serious? Animals do not have the frontal lobe of the brain, the part of the brain that is unique to humans, that is the part I was discussing. Cross referencing with nothing would serve no purpose.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
if this is true; then animals must experience love too. they have the same chemical surges.
So, basically you know how it works, but you want to attribute experience to something "Far beyond" chemicals in order to glorify experience?
Certainly they do. The only thing they lack is the executive seat/frontal lobe that is unique to humans. So there experiences are different. But never-the-less they do experience love.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You are using circular logic and it doesn't fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic
Yea circular logic. You cannot attribute an apple to an apple, or an orange to an orange. You attribute the apple to the apple tree, and the apple tree to the apple seed, and so on. Experience cannot be attributed to experience. It's circular reasoning. If it were true, you could make something out of nothing.
and thus you admitt that the study is narrow minded. aimed only at a section of brain and not the brain experience.
the cross reference is necessary. because we're on the subject of love; one must cross reference the difference between the human need to reproduce vs an aminals need to reproduce. if we find the human need in the front lobe; and animals don't have that front lobe yet accomplish the same goal; how is this done? why are we different and what makes us different? if we evolved from the same organism how and why do different brains function differently? why do we both look at the same thing and see something completely different? these are the questions i need answered to put stock in the study. otherwise it's just another clown's opinion.
another example: you may look at a piece of swiss cheeze and see and sense food. i however look at it as garbage and would never put something that smelled like shit into my mouth. yet all mice would look at it as food.
yet everything in life is circular. the circle or cycle of life.
life>death>decomposition> (to feed new life)> then life from the decompsition.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Did you attend highschool?
Color is different, because of the difference in retina. I mean, all the answers you seek are common knowledge.
The amygdala is the centre for love, it's part of the reptilian brain. The frontal lobe provides long-term planning and forethought. Something like social trust and romantic love may not exist in all animals for that reason. So in an animal like a lizard you may have chemical bonding, in the human you have chemical bonding and forethought.
Anyway, I don't think this is going to go anywhere. Just stick with your logic "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists."
that's not my point nor did i say that. it went right over your head; challenged you and you folded with the usual athiestic answer.
the bible was written by man and i put very little stock in it. however; there are too many coincidences to blame the diversity of life on a roll of the dice.
so we'll agree to disagree. have a good weekend.
What coincidences? What roll of the dice? There is nothing of the sort.
Got it from David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Psychology 4th Edition" on page 156, it reads:
"... all the neurons a person will ever have - some 100 to 200 billion of them - have already formed by the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, before the brain growth spurt has even begun (Kolb & Fantie, 1989; Rakic, 1991)
Meanwhile, the process of synaptogensis - the formation of synaptic connections among neurons - proceeds rapidly during the brain growth spurt. This brings us to one of the more interesting facts about the developing nervous system: The average infant has far more neurons and neural connections than adults do. The reason is that neurons that successfully interconnect with other neurons crowd out those that don't, so that about half the neurons produced early in life also die early in life (Janowsky & Finlay, 1986)"
The way I see it, that's a learning process, like evolution. Not a static process like design. The complexity of the brain is developed through collecting signal data and creating bonds with them and applying neurons to interpret them.
The way the brain develops is not coincidental, nor is it a roll of dice (which isn't really random). It's a system that tries everything and finds what works. Not design, not coincidence, not random. Learning.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea yea, the kiss is the stimulus. Yea, I'm not discrediting that, I'm just excluding it as obvious. I didn't think that needed to be addressed.
hmm...... so in other words some people who have a religion are only helping others and not being vilolent because they were told to do so by bible or god...hmmm....
i don't have a religion, yet i do help and try to be nice to everyone, just because i want to do the right thing and leave in peace
This our complementarity, Ahnimus. It's understandable that we are wired to prefer certain ways, or schools of thought. I lean towards tuning out the brain chemical part and you lean towards tuning out the space-time action part. On this subject, earlier you said: 'you want to attribute experience to something "Far beyond" chemicals in order to glorify experience'. You were inaccurate. I was trying to show you something perfectly logical that you were leaving out of the equation. You said I was using circular logic, when I was using simple observation and logic, the cornerstones of science. You said: "... your hypothesis violates the conservation of energy by stating that the emergent property, or experience of love, is greater than the sum of it's parts." And due to your denial of those variables that existed in the equation, and that I eventually detailed in numerous ways, you distorted what you were hearing me say. You did not hear what I did actually say. By you automatically assuming I'm being illogical because I am spiritual, even despite many protestations that I refer purely to the physical, you are prevented yourself from hearing what I was saying.
My view complements your view. I focus much of my intelligence on what you naturally pay little attention to and therefore I've honed some valid wisdom there. I am pointing out to you something you are not paying attention to, because I see you are missing something valid. I'm not pulling rank. I'm not being an egotist. I'm adding complementary and new, valid information to the topic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, just please refrain from using phrases like "far beyond" try not to make it sound like some thing is greater than the sum of it's parts. The experience of love is not "far beyond" the biochemistry that causes it.
I disagree with you on this aspect. I can meet you at your map of the world, but I am still me and I can only agree when I agree. this is why I only ask you to agree with me when you genuinely do. It's crucial that we are both authentic to ourselves, while attempting to see eye to eye. I see it as: far beyond. I believe the thoughts, feelings, actions, and the 3-d experience of love in space-time is far beyond the brain chemical. Just like the painting of the Mona Lisa is far beyond red, yellow and blue paint.
I am willing to do what I can to see eye to eye, without compromising myself. Are you willing to accept the ways I am different from you, even if you don't always agree or understand?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
faith rules
dreamer in my dream
we got the guns
i love you,but im..............callin out.........callin out
I thought this forum was about debate, not accepting each other's point of view.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Then explain how it is far beyond? The difference in view point is a result of difference in knowledge. Explain to me what you know that causes you to believe it's "far beyond".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!