World would be worse off without faith...

Jeanie

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

:) :) :)
:) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :)

Aaaah! Pretty!

angelica

Jeanie wrote:

LMAO!! :D Too funny girl!!!

I really will have to keep a watch on this!!!


It looks like it's just hotting up again!!!

Well thank heavens we have Roland here to keep things pretty and lighthearted!

onelongsong

angelica wrote:

If Ahnimus plans on denying human actions and observable experiences, I just might accuse him of denying reality. Being in out of touch with reality would make him "psychotic" by definition.


Mauaahahhahahhaaa!!!!! *wicked head toss to accompany the heinous belly laugh*

it's spring here and the sage is beginning to bloom. looking out over them i noticed they were all alike. almost exact copies of eachother. then i recalled a neighbors puppies they were trying to sell. each looked exactly alike and behaved alike. then i remembered my children. each one had a distinct personality even before it had interaction with the world.
maybe proof of a soul is in the eyes of an infant.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

it's spring here and the sage is beginning to bloom. looking out over them i noticed they were all alike. almost exact copies of eachother. then i recalled a neighbors puppies they were trying to sell. each looked exactly alike and behaved alike. then i remembered my children. each one had a distinct personality even before it had interaction with the world.
maybe proof of a soul is in the eyes of an infant.

Those were some wierd puppies. In my experience with puppies, they've all had very distinct personalities.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

it's spring here and the sage is beginning to bloom. looking out over them i noticed they were all alike. almost exact copies of eachother. then i recalled a neighbors puppies they were trying to sell. each looked exactly alike and behaved alike. then i remembered my children. each one had a distinct personality even before it had interaction with the world.
maybe proof of a soul is in the eyes of an infant.

Keep digging. Keep looking at the complexity of life and trying to understand it. A baby begins to learn during pregnancy. They can hear and learn in the prenatal environment.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

If Ahnimus plans on denying human actions and observable experiences, I just might accuse him of denying reality. Being in out of touch with reality would make him "psychotic" by definition.


Mauaahahhahahhaaa!!!!! *wicked head toss to accompany the heinous belly laugh*

What am I denying now?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

What am I denying now?

If you're not denying anything, I'm glad to hear it.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

If you're not denying anything, I'm glad to hear it.

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?

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Keep digging. Keep looking at the complexity of life and trying to understand it. A baby begins to learn during pregnancy. They can hear and learn in the prenatal environment.

and during that time; the infant would have learned about the same thing. in my situation, anyway. yet they were still so different. and they still display those basic traits.
for example; you could post under a different screen name and we would know it's you. you are unique and we can identify you without sight or voice.

now if our brains functioned the same; processed information the same; etc; we would think the same. similar to a school of fish. there may be a thousand fish in that school yet each will move in unison. now give those fish a soul and free will and they'd all run into eachother.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

and during that time; the infant would have learned about the same thing. in my situation, anyway. yet they were still so different. and they still display those basic traits.
for example; you could post under a different screen name and we would know it's you. you are unique and we can identify you without sight or voice.

now if our brains functioned the same; processed information the same; etc; we would think the same. similar to a school of fish. there may be a thousand fish in that school yet each will move in unison. now give those fish a soul and free will and they'd all run into eachother.

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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?

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

You are using circular logic and it doesn't fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic