World would be worse off without faith...

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".

We have been using the example of love. When the subject of love comes up, you say that love is this and that chemical. When a person experiences this or that chemical, they are also experiencing actions. Love is extended beyond the chemical into acts, like in a play--stories. This is what I referred to earlier about the images our brain chemicals project into the world. We create these little scenarios around us. We act them out with our physical bodies. These plays that we act out may entail sex, which can lead to a pregnancy. The actual experience and actions of love are far beyond a chemical. They can result in the creation of a human life! That is beyond your chemicals--it becomes about affecting the chemicals of another person which are far beyond you. And by such a connections you can actually play a part in creating new chemicals in a new individual, all within the framework of love. The chemicals you speak of are intricately interwoven with the meaingful experiences and actions that I refer to. These 'plays' we act out in love, are an example of what I refer to as the illusions we play out in the real world. A girl might kiss you, and that is a physically observable objective and neutral action. And yet, your response naturally ascribes meaning to that kiss. Was it good or bad? Even if part of you is thinking about your brain chemicals during the kiss ( :rolleyes: ), other parts of your body may respond in other ways. Those responses may trigger other chemicals. These "plays" and the scripts that our brain programming projects into the world is, IMHO, far beyond being just the chemical. It's about complex interactions of chemicals, organisms, forces, all playing out in unendingly unique patterns.

In our western reductionist view, we want to understand what is potent about an apple. So we take the apple apart and come up with some vitamins and minerals and put them in a jar and sell them. We're so smart we think. And we overlook the fact that it's the apple itself, with all the parts working in perfect interaction that truly makes the potency of the apple. When we reduce at the expense of understanding, we lose understanding. We ignore things, making them unconscious even though in the objective natural world they are right before our eyes. We've created negative hallucinations by glossing over them. I've heard a few people in this thread say we are our brain or our chemicals. I see we are our skin, our hearts, organs, cells, our actions, our heartfelt meaning that we put into our world and on and on. We have chemical correlates for who we are, but to confuse that with being who we are is profoundly reductionist to me. At the same time, if someone talks about love, and you say that the brain chemistry nature of love is: such and such, that is acceptable, because you are not attempting to collapse all the other important variables, but rather you have defined a specific context.

When we take the actions of love and seek to understand them, we have naturally come to brain chemicals. When a scientist then tells me that those chemicals ARE love, I see that they have forgotten the reality they had initially hoped to understand.

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica,

I don't intend to steal away the potency of the experience of love. Certainly the chemicals of love and the experience of love are two different things. The experience is however an emergent property of the chemicals. Understanding how the chemicals behave we can better tune ourselves in and out of love, we can capitalize on the experience of love with a greater understanding of all aspects of it. Experience will always seem greater to us than the parts that make it up, because our consciousness is experience. I'm not trying to take anything away, I just don't want it to go "far beyond".

Ignorance is bliss....

gossardstradlin wrote:

Thanks Jeanie. Your positive energy in your posts is great, even if sometimes it's Chardonnay induced.

Sheesh!! ONE DAY!! ONE DAY I drink chardonnay and suddenly I'm a lush? And at least I confessed my sins!! hehe!!

My philosophy? Be happy wherever you can, because the alternative is not fun. Find happiness, joy and love in small things as well as big. And if you have to find an emotional guideline to take you through life then I choose the positive ones. AND if some days that proves a little difficult, then a glass or four or chardy is not the worst thing you can do with an afternoon occassionally!!

gossardstradlin wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more. Sometimes in the smallest, simplest things one finds the greatest strength, happiness, and positivity. Outlook/perception is major!!!

For me it's a glass or two of whiskey.

Yes, perception!! That's it exactly!! I have to say it's been interesting reading all the different points of view here on the thread in that even those on different sides of the debate seem to be coming to the discussion with passion for their own point of view. And my perception of that would be that Passion = Love, which is all positive emotions. So perhaps some folk aren't as far apart as they would like to think!

Well gs we'll never fight over the last drink! But that's cool, I raise my glass to you anyway! Well not today, of course, but next time I'm imbibing!

Ahnimus wrote:

I disagree with you. Recent experiments by Paul Zak have shown that even when two people are anonymous and aren't directly in contact with each other, they display trust and have high levels of oxytocin in their blood. His experiments used participants seated behind computers. Half of the participants group A were given a sum of money into their account, Group B was given nothing. It was up to Group A to transfer as much as they want to group B and in doing to the amount was multiplied. So if they transfered $30, person in Group B would receive something like $60, then person from Group B could transfer as much as they want back. Most Group A participants transferred the entire amount to Group B, and the majority of Group B transferred half back, maximizing the mutual benefit, these people marked highest for Oxytocin. Some did not transfer much at all, there is a biochemical explanation for that too. The chemicals involved in biochemistry are quite numerous and may explain all behavior if looked at optimistically.

I'd like to establish that I believe in thermodynamics and the natural laws. To convince me that something is more than the sum of it's parts, it will require some kind of physical evidence. I've brought to the table a theory about some evidence and the theories I've heard seem only to discount the evidence and fail to introduce any new evidence to which these new theories arise. You are welcome to explore Paul Zak's experiments, findings and credibility as much as you'd like. You are welcome to develop your own theories as to what this evidence means. You are also welcome to bring new evidence to the discussion and new theories about such evidence. But, how should I interpret statements that seek only to undermine my theories without introducing any new facts or theories themselves?

If we can establish that the experiences we have are a result of biochemistry and the chemical levels correspond with experience. Then the suggestion that the experience is more than the chemicals would have to introduce new physical evidence that contributes to the overall experience. Social trust is already attributed to oxytocin.

Yeah, I'm sorry Ryan, I understand what you are saying here, but why do you have to whittle all the good stuff in life down to cold, hard fact? Perhaps it is as you say, perhaps it all gets down to chemicals somehow in the end, and maybe it is just weak mindedness on my part to choose to believe that something else is happening. You are certainly entitled to your views. But, frankly life is shitty enough. So I choose to go with the good stuff, to feel, to believe, to have faith and to just go with it and enjoy it. And at least that way I can enjoy the best of people. And not be looking at them as a chemical cocktail that I HAVE to HAVE. Just as you reason it is all chemical and brain activity based on chemicals, I reason that there is connection. Perhaps it's the same thing. Who knows? But I prefer looking at it from my perspective, to be honest. At least that way people can feel special. And people can feel connected. And connection is a powerful, powerful thing.

onelongsong wrote:

again with the experiments.
my experiments have found a cure for cancer. under the law; i cannot make this claim. until the compound can be isolated in a lab and reproduced sythetically; i can't say a word.

that being said; i will admitt that the "experience" causes the biochemistry and the change in chemical levels. i do not have a change in chemical levels and thus become attracted to a woman; instead; i am attracted to a woman and thus the chemical levels change. i'm not questioning the experiment; only the way it was interpreted.
for example; one who does not believe in God will look at evolution as the beginning of life; while a religious person will tell you that God created evolution.
people find what they are looking for. we both look at the same study and see different results. you see a chemical reaction creating an experience and i see an experience creating a chemical reaction.
i respect your views and opinions; i just don't agree with them.

Actually, the interaction causes the chemicals which causes the experiences. The physical stimuli cause the chemicals which cause the experience, or sensation of Love.

It's actually only a matter of belief if you choose not to believe in reality.

catefrances wrote:

what the hall is going on with you two?, you're going round and round on something that isn't going to be resolved. personally i think that attraction is the result of a chemical reaction. i also think that after that initial reaction it grows into something more. but despite that, i still think that attraction lasts only as long as your body is getting the stimulus it requires.
and as for the religion thing. if you feel you need that in your life then great. be my guest. some of us are quite content knowing that we can get by without faith in something that can't be proven.

How does it "grow into something more"?

catefrances wrote:

it grows into dependence. and yes ahnimus, that is a chemical dependence i believe. it's like a drug. otherwise why would it physically hurt when that stimulus is taken from us?
listen ryan, we're on the same side here.

Ok, so you don't literally mean that the experience of love grows beyond the chemicals, rather the chemicals grow with the experience. Correct?