World would be worse off without faith...

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I am attributing experience to experience.

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.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

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."

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

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.

angelica

angelica wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

And don't forget about this one.

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.

genie

gossardstradlin wrote:

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

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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 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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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 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.

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

deadnothingbetter

angelica wrote:

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.

deadnote

religion sucks
faith rules

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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".

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.