Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Love Can Be Explained

rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2011 11:29:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you saying that I was artificially created in a lab? I'll have you know that my father didn't jack off into a cup. I was conceived on a water bed via good old fashioned coitus.

Just the way Jesus intended... but you wouldn't know about that, what with your dangerously subversive, and possibly COMMUNIST liberal "faith".
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 1:54:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

Plus, we know that there are cases where the brain can have the capacity to not feel love or empathy, e.g. psychopaths and the like. Therefore, not everyone can experience love. There are cases where there is simply an error that results in not having the capacity to do so.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 3:07:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

So love does not exist, it is just a term given to a complex process in the brain. Good to know.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:01:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.:

Question: You place an individual in an MRI and flash random pictures.

Slide 1: Picture of mutilated bodies
Slide 2: Picture of butterfly on a leaf
Slide 3: Picture of Hitler giving a speech
Slide 4: Picture of a happy woman running with a dog
Slide 5: Picture of your family all smiling and laughing
Slide 6: Picture of dead Jews being wheel-barrowed into a mass grave
Slide 7: Picture of people at a child's birthday party
Slide 8: Picture of your lover/boyfriend
Slide 9: Picture of atomic bomb exploding

And so on...

Each of those are going to give you a visceral emotion, and the people in the control room will see your brain light up in different regions. But are you witnessing the actual emotion or are you merely witnessing the physiological response of love, affection, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 8:24:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

You atheist are really angry at god to try these arguments. I mean all you think love is, is a chemical in the brain. I guess you have never been in love. It is more and god brings love to you, that is probably why you can't understand love is more then a chemical in the brain as well.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 6:52:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

It was not at issue if Love (or God) is explainable.

The point was it is unseen and only felt, only indirect proofs can be attributed to Love. Even fewer predictions can be made concerning Love.

- As to your comment for test tubes:
If you were accurate in your statement then you would see a thousand "love" potions on the market. Pig pheromones have been the closest they have gotten to inspire lust, but the chemical for Love is largely speculative.

I will point out that human lust need no actual pheromones to inspire it. There is also as many failures to inspire lust using pig pheromones as to the success of it. The science behind it is more like "snake oil" sales.
If you disagree, I would worry about the next quasi-ugly male you wind up lusting after….

Also your understanding of Psychiatry is a bit of a concern I have for you and seems to be basis for your belief.

Psychiatrists do not test for imbalances of chemicals in the brain to determine if you are "off".
The prescriptions of chemicals are not based on science but on mere observation and assumption.

Zero test tubes are involved. They merely assess you based upon your feedback.

Scientific tests do show that chemicals do affect brain function and Human pharmaceutical testing also show that brain chemicals can be affected by large doses of many kinds of chemicals.

This does not equate to Love being "explained", which I belive you meant that it is purely naturalistic.

This does not equate that chemical reactions "control" brain functions.
Correlation is not causation.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 6:54:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 8:24:59 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

You atheist are really angry at god to try these arguments. I mean all you think love is, is a chemical in the brain. I guess you have never been in love. It is more and god brings love to you, that is probably why you can't understand love is more then a chemical in the brain as well.

Yes. Some people have never been in love and NEVER CAN BE. We know this. We've seen this. Each time I show you something, you just straight up ignore it.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:00:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 6:54:28 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 8:24:59 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

You atheist are really angry at god to try these arguments. I mean all you think love is, is a chemical in the brain. I guess you have never been in love. It is more and god brings love to you, that is probably why you can't understand love is more then a chemical in the brain as well.

Yes. Some people have never been in love and NEVER CAN BE. We know this. We've seen this. Each time I show you something, you just straight up ignore it.

Even if you are right, and I have never personally met anyone that was incapable of Love, your claim leaves much to be desired.

Typically, the Church has successfully treated emotions with a great deal of success as spiritual (intellect/soul) issues.

I personally have counseled many people in that fashion and been successful.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:00:58 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 6:54:28 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 8:24:59 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

You atheist are really angry at god to try these arguments. I mean all you think love is, is a chemical in the brain. I guess you have never been in love. It is more and god brings love to you, that is probably why you can't understand love is more then a chemical in the brain as well.

Yes. Some people have never been in love and NEVER CAN BE. We know this. We've seen this. Each time I show you something, you just straight up ignore it.

Even if you are right, and I have never personally met anyone that was incapable of Love, your claim leaves much to be desired.

Typically, the Church has successfully treated emotions with a great deal of success as spiritual (intellect/soul) issues.

I personally have counseled many people in that fashion and been successful.

Ah. So you treat Psychopaths? Cool story man. Add that to EVERYTHING you do.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:24:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:01:37 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 7:00:58 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 6:54:28 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 8:24:59 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

You atheist are really angry at god to try these arguments. I mean all you think love is, is a chemical in the brain. I guess you have never been in love. It is more and god brings love to you, that is probably why you can't understand love is more then a chemical in the brain as well.

Yes. Some people have never been in love and NEVER CAN BE. We know this. We've seen this. Each time I show you something, you just straight up ignore it.

Even if you are right, and I have never personally met anyone that was incapable of Love, your claim leaves much to be desired.

Typically, the Church has successfully treated emotions with a great deal of success as spiritual (intellect/soul) issues.

I personally have counseled many people in that fashion and been successful.

Ah. So you treat Psychopaths? Cool story man. Add that to EVERYTHING you do.

I worked as a Soldier in the Salvation Army in the Welfare county of Chester PA. It was the place for the VA Hospital, Prison and Philadelphia relocation.

Schizophrenia was the main mental ailment in the area. I am still very close to one schizophrenic. I will be the best man at his wedding in Philadelphia.

The demon possessed psychopaths were generally not getting out of prison and were dealt with inside the prison.

I never personally dealt with the psychopaths and only had a minor role in the prison side of it.

My focus was the Hospitals, the Bible studies and the street schizo's and drug addict community.

I currently am no longer in Philadelphia and no longer a chaplain but in a suburb of Atlanta. I am still a Soldier in the Sally and I have other roles now.

Also,
Why do you condemn me for not being a couch potato?
Why do you get upset because I have accomplished so much?
You do realize there are people who spend the entirety of their time experiencing their lives and learning?

(Not being sacrastic) Can I ask what do you do on a daily basis? What are your life goals? What are you doing to achieve them? Could you be doing more?
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:29:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:24:27 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 7:01:37 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 7:00:58 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 6:54:28 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 8:24:59 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

You atheist are really angry at god to try these arguments. I mean all you think love is, is a chemical in the brain. I guess you have never been in love. It is more and god brings love to you, that is probably why you can't understand love is more then a chemical in the brain as well.

Yes. Some people have never been in love and NEVER CAN BE. We know this. We've seen this. Each time I show you something, you just straight up ignore it.

Even if you are right, and I have never personally met anyone that was incapable of Love, your claim leaves much to be desired.

Typically, the Church has successfully treated emotions with a great deal of success as spiritual (intellect/soul) issues.

I personally have counseled many people in that fashion and been successful.

Ah. So you treat Psychopaths? Cool story man. Add that to EVERYTHING you do.

I worked as a Soldier in the Salvation Army in the Welfare county of Chester PA. It was the place for the VA Hospital, Prison and Philadelphia relocation.

Schizophrenia was the main mental ailment in the area. I am still very close to one schizophrenic. I will be the best man at his wedding in Philadelphia.

The demon possessed psychopaths were generally not getting out of prison and were dealt with inside the prison.

I never personally dealt with the psychopaths and only had a minor role in the prison side of it.

My focus was the Hospitals, the Bible studies and the street schizo's and drug addict community.

I currently am no longer in Philadelphia and no longer a chaplain but in a suburb of Atlanta. I am still a Soldier in the Sally and I have other roles now.


Also,
Why do you condemn me for not being a couch potato?
Why do you get upset because I have accomplished so much?
You do realize there are people who spend the entirety of their time experiencing their lives and learning?

(Not being sacrastic) Can I ask what do you do on a daily basis? What are your life goals? What are you doing to achieve them? Could you be doing more?

Schizophrenia is not psychopathy. But my point is we know psychopaths CANNOT feel love. They do not have the capacity for it. That is their curse, and it's tragic.

Now FIRST OFF, you questioning my credentials is an ad hominem. So I'm not actually obligated to answer.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:31:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Plus, my point wasn't an attack, so much as amazement that you've down so much. That is terrific, and I applaud you for it. I am honestly surprised by your credentials, but I guess I just have to take your word for them. But try not to use them as an appeal to authority, which is fallacious.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:37:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 1:54:55 AM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

Plus, we know that there are cases where the brain can have the capacity to not feel love or empathy, e.g. psychopaths and the like. Therefore, not everyone can experience love. There are cases where there is simply an error that results in not having the capacity to do so.

Not necessarily an error, but rather they experience things differently. Since we as humans tend to put labels on things. An emotion one person calls love another person could think of as infatuation and so forth. The analogy of religion and emotions is actually a pretty good one. Different people experience different emotions just as different people have different religions. Does having a religion different from someone else make a person defective? No. Neither is supposedly not being capable of experiencing 'love.'
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:40:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

Okay, no.

First off, showing that there are neural substrates that correlate with certain emotions is not the same thing as showing that certain emotions just *are* neural substrates.

Second off, you're committing what Hacker and Bennett have called the "mereological fallacy" in neuroscience.

http://books.google.com...

Third off, talk of pyschological predicates like "being in love" being applied anything less than than entire persons makes no sense as Tyler Burge as pointed out:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Fourth off, there's a reason why almost no one who studies these issues extensively (yes, including atheists) is a type-identity theorist anymore - that went out with the 70's for very good reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:47:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:29:54 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 7:24:27 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 7:01:37 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 7:00:58 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 6:54:28 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/18/2011 8:24:59 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

You atheist are really angry at god to try these arguments. I mean all you think love is, is a chemical in the brain. I guess you have never been in love. It is more and god brings love to you, that is probably why you can't understand love is more then a chemical in the brain as well.

Yes. Some people have never been in love and NEVER CAN BE. We know this. We've seen this. Each time I show you something, you just straight up ignore it.

Even if you are right, and I have never personally met anyone that was incapable of Love, your claim leaves much to be desired.

Typically, the Church has successfully treated emotions with a great deal of success as spiritual (intellect/soul) issues.

I personally have counseled many people in that fashion and been successful.

Ah. So you treat Psychopaths? Cool story man. Add that to EVERYTHING you do.

I worked as a Soldier in the Salvation Army in the Welfare county of Chester PA. It was the place for the VA Hospital, Prison and Philadelphia relocation.

Schizophrenia was the main mental ailment in the area. I am still very close to one schizophrenic. I will be the best man at his wedding in Philadelphia.

The demon possessed psychopaths were generally not getting out of prison and were dealt with inside the prison.

I never personally dealt with the psychopaths and only had a minor role in the prison side of it.

My focus was the Hospitals, the Bible studies and the street schizo's and drug addict community.

I currently am no longer in Philadelphia and no longer a chaplain but in a suburb of Atlanta. I am still a Soldier in the Sally and I have other roles now.


Also,
Why do you condemn me for not being a couch potato?
Why do you get upset because I have accomplished so much?
You do realize there are people who spend the entirety of their time experiencing their lives and learning?

(Not being sacrastic) Can I ask what do you do on a daily basis? What are your life goals? What are you doing to achieve them? Could you be doing more?

Schizophrenia is not psychopathy. But my point is we know psychopaths CANNOT feel love. They do not have the capacity for it. That is their curse, and it's tragic.

I was very clear above, I did not work directly with Psychopaths. I worked with Schizo's and drug addicts.


Now FIRST OFF, you questioning my credentials is an ad hominem. So I'm not actually obligated to answer.

I was asking you about your credentials, it is not an Ad hominem to ask someone their field of study or to ask for their authority on a subject.

You ridiculed mine, which is an ad hominem.

It would be an ad hominem to ridicule your credentials, which I did not do.

It is not an ad hominem to point out that someone has no credentials in the field being discussed. That is quite pertinent and not at all fallacious.

So that brings me to ask, in a completely friendly manner, what is your life goals? What are you plans and desires for your personal goals?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:48:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:40:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

Okay, no.

First off, showing that there are neural substrates that correlate with certain emotions is not the same thing as showing that certain emotions just *are* neural substrates.

Second off, you're committing what Hacker and Bennett have called the "mereological fallacy" in neuroscience.

http://books.google.com...

Third off, talk of pyschological predicates like "being in love" being applied anything less than than entire persons makes no sense as Tyler Burge as pointed out:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Fourth off, there's a reason why almost no one who studies these issues extensively (yes, including atheists) is a type-identity theorist anymore - that went out with the 70's for very good reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

I am very impressed with your thorough knowledge on the subject.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 7:58:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:48:45 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 7:40:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

Okay, no.

First off, showing that there are neural substrates that correlate with certain emotions is not the same thing as showing that certain emotions just *are* neural substrates.

Second off, you're committing what Hacker and Bennett have called the "mereological fallacy" in neuroscience.

http://books.google.com...

Third off, talk of pyschological predicates like "being in love" being applied anything less than than entire persons makes no sense as Tyler Burge as pointed out:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Fourth off, there's a reason why almost no one who studies these issues extensively (yes, including atheists) is a type-identity theorist anymore - that went out with the 70's for very good reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...

I am very impressed with your thorough knowledge on the subject.

Thanks. I am very interested in issues surrounding the mind (philosophy of mind, neuroscience, etc) so I try to keep up to date on the subject. One of my hobbies. Plus, my sister is working on her dissertation in psychology right now and I think her enthusiasm has rubbed off on me. :P
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 9:12:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:31:06 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Plus, my point wasn't an attack, so much as amazement that you've down so much. That is terrific, and I applaud you for it. I am honestly surprised by your credentials, but I guess I just have to take your word for them. But try not to use them as an appeal to authority, which is fallacious.

Sorry, I took it as ridicule which is usually the response from people like C_N and Izbo.

I work very hard at everything I do. In between managing my family life, I study near endless amounts and I work the rest of the time.

An appeal to authority is not fallacious either btw.

Here is Nizkor explaining.
"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject"

If I appeal to a physicist about physics then it is not a fallacy for example.

It is only a fallacy if I appeal to pig farmer as a source of information concerning courtroom behavior.

But appealing to a prestigious Judge (or being one) concerning courtroom behavior is not a fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org...
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 11:55:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 3:07:50 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

So love does not exist, it is just a term given to a complex process in the brain. Good to know.

I think is still exists. It just isn't magical or supernatural in that it can't be explained.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 11:56:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:01:41 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.:

Question: You place an individual in an MRI and flash random pictures.

Slide 1: Picture of mutilated bodies
Slide 2: Picture of butterfly on a leaf
Slide 3: Picture of Hitler giving a speech
Slide 4: Picture of a happy woman running with a dog
Slide 5: Picture of your family all smiling and laughing
Slide 6: Picture of dead Jews being wheel-barrowed into a mass grave
Slide 7: Picture of people at a child's birthday party
Slide 8: Picture of your lover/boyfriend
Slide 9: Picture of atomic bomb exploding

And so on...

Each of those are going to give you a visceral emotion, and the people in the control room will see your brain light up in different regions. But are you witnessing the actual emotion or are you merely witnessing the physiological response of love, affection, happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc?

Is it not true that we can only sense the physical? If we can only sense the physical, mustn't every emotion be a chemical reaction? Wouldn't we not be able to sense it if it isn't?
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 11:57:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 8:24:59 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

You atheist are really angry at god to try these arguments. I mean all you think love is, is a chemical in the brain. I guess you have never been in love.

Lolz. I am in love. I have a boyfriend and he means everything to me. I just know that we aren't "written in the stars". There is nothing magical about it. Its stil infinitely special to me though.

It is more and god brings love to you, that is probably why you can't understand love is more then a chemical in the brain as well.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:03:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 6:52:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

It was not at issue if Love (or God) is explainable.

The point was it is unseen and only felt, only indirect proofs can be attributed to Love. Even fewer predictions can be made concerning Love.

Love can be seen though. We see evidence of it with different machines.

- As to your comment for test tubes:
If you were accurate in your statement then you would see a thousand "love" potions on the market. Pig pheromones have been the closest they have gotten to inspire lust, but the chemical for Love is largely speculative.

Not true. Love is an extremely complex process that we have only found can happen in the brain. Maybe someday we will be able to replicate it. When I said "test tubes" it was more metaphorical in the sense that we have evidence for its existence and know how it happens. We have no such evidence for God.

I will point out that human lust need no actual pheromones to inspire it. There is also as many failures to inspire lust using pig pheromones as to the success of it. The science behind it is more like "snake oil" sales.
If you disagree, I would worry about the next quasi-ugly male you wind up lusting after….


Also your understanding of Psychiatry is a bit of a concern I have for you and seems to be basis for your belief.

Psychiatrists do not test for imbalances of chemicals in the brain to determine if you are "off".
The prescriptions of chemicals are not based on science but on mere observation and assumption.

I know this. I actually know a lot about psychiatry. Your point? I wasn't talking about psychiatry.

Zero test tubes are involved. They merely assess you based upon your feedback.



Scientific tests do show that chemicals do affect brain function and Human pharmaceutical testing also show that brain chemicals can be affected by large doses of many kinds of chemicals.

This does not equate to Love being "explained", which I belive you meant that it is purely naturalistic.

It is purely naturalistic. It is a fact. Humans developed the capability to love because it was beneficial to the species. There are studies to prove it. Also, does it make sense that all other emotions be purely naturalistic but this one for some reason isn"t?

This does not equate that chemical reactions "control" brain functions.
Correlation is not causation.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:08:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:40:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

Okay, no.

First off, showing that there are neural substrates that correlate with certain emotions is not the same thing as showing that certain emotions just *are* neural substrates.

Do you think that all emotions are not purely naturalistic? Also we can only sense the physical yes? So if we sense emotions mustn't they be physical and therefore chemical reactions in the brain?

Second off, you're committing what Hacker and Bennett have called the "mereological fallacy" in neuroscience.

http://books.google.com...

Third off, talk of pyschological predicates like "being in love" being applied anything less than than entire persons makes no sense as Tyler Burge as pointed out:

I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you be more clear?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Fourth off, there's a reason why almost no one who studies these issues extensively (yes, including atheists) is a type-identity theorist anymore - that went out with the 70's for very good reason.

What is a type-identity theorist and what does that have to do with anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 12:38:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 12:08:10 AM, rogue wrote:

Do you think that all emotions are not purely naturalistic?

What is that even supposed to mean? What do you mean by "naturalistic"? And please just don't say "not supernaturalistic" because you're still going to be left with the same question of what's supposed to count as being "naturalistic". Emotions are qualia and qualia are non-physical.

Also we can only sense the physical yes?

No.

So if we sense emotions mustn't they be physical and therefore chemical reactions in the brain?


Even if we accepted the dubious claim that we can only sense the physical it doesn't follow that emotions are identical with certain types of brain states (chemical reactions/neurons firing and all that).

I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you be more clear?


That it makes absolutely no sense to say things like love is chemical reactions or you could see "love" in an mri. Psychological terms like "love" only apply to the whole of the human being; not to a part of it. It makes sense to say you are in love. It makes no sense to say your brain, or certain states of your brain, are in love. It's the mereological fallacy. Again, this goes back to what Burge, Bennett, and Hacker said; I'd highly encourage you read their work of which I posted.

Fourth off, there's a reason why almost no one who studies these issues extensively (yes, including atheists) is a type-identity theorist anymore - that went out with the 70's for very good reason.

What is a type-identity theorist and what does that have to do with anything?


You think that a certain types of mental states are identical with certain types brain states. That makes you a type-identity theorist. What I'm telling you is that your position has largely been abandoned for decades and for very good reason. I posted those reasons in the links.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 12:23:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 12:38:50 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/19/2011 12:08:10 AM, rogue wrote:

Do you think that all emotions are not purely naturalistic?

What is that even supposed to mean? What do you mean by "naturalistic"? And please just don't say "not supernaturalistic" because you're still going to be left with the same question of what's supposed to count as being "naturalistic". Emotions are qualia and qualia are non-physical.

I mean do you think that they come from a spirit or personality that is effected independently from our bodies or do you think that emotions are reactions that our brains have to the world around us and are therefore chemical reactions in the brain. Or something else?

Also we can only sense the physical yes?

No.

What else can we sense? And how?

So if we sense emotions mustn't they be physical and therefore chemical reactions in the brain?


Even if we accepted the dubious claim that we can only sense the physical it doesn't follow that emotions are identical with certain types of brain states (chemical reactions/neurons firing and all that).

How so? Aren't all our senses reactions in the brain?

I'm not sure what your point is here. Can you be more clear?


That it makes absolutely no sense to say things like love is chemical reactions or you could see "love" in an mri. Psychological terms like "love" only apply to the whole of the human being; not to a part of it. It makes sense to say you are in love. It makes no sense to say your brain, or certain states of your brain, are in love. It's the mereological fallacy. Again, this goes back to what Burge, Bennett, and Hacker said; I'd highly encourage you read their work of which I posted.

You are going into semantics now. One is in love when one feels the emotion of being in love. Everything we sense and feel is because of chemical reactions in our brain that respond to the surrounding environment. Do you not think so? How else can we logically function?


Fourth off, there's a reason why almost no one who studies these issues extensively (yes, including atheists) is a type-identity theorist anymore - that went out with the 70's for very good reason.

What is a type-identity theorist and what does that have to do with anything?


You think that a certain types of mental states are identical with certain types brain states. That makes you a type-identity theorist. What I'm telling you is that your position has largely been abandoned for decades and for very good reason. I posted those reasons in the links.

I don't think I am one. It is a lot more complicated than just certain types of mental states are identical with certain types of brain states.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 9:43:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/17/2011 11:19:07 PM, rogue wrote:
I have people use love as an unexplainable example that we know exists so that it seems not so crazy to believe in God. Well let me tell you, we have explained love. Love and all feelings and connections between people are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less special, but really you could put love in a test tube.

Love is God. Period.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 4:23:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 7:40:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
First off, showing that there are neural substrates that correlate with certain emotions is not the same thing as showing that certain emotions just *are* neural substrates.

True, but obviously we have evidence that neural substrates can completely affect emotions. That is not to say that emotions ARE neural substrates, but that neural substrates cause/affect emotions so "emotions" can just be descriptors referring to reactions - not necessarily something supernatural or whatever. Plus experiences (well the brain's interpretation of them) affects reactions to neural substrates.

Second off, you're committing what Hacker and Bennett have called the "mereological fallacy" in neuroscience.

http://books.google.com...

For those who actually read what people post, the authors begin talking about this fallacy on page 73.

This point is essentially what PCP said above - that you cannot assign the brain powers and activities (such as loving) that are normally normally reserved for sentient beings... In other words, just because a human being can feel doesn't necessarily mean that a brain feels.

We can't say that a brain feels (we have no idea what/if a brain feels) but we can say with reasonable certainty that a person feels because of the brain. If not, why doesn't a chair feel?

Third off, talk of pyschological predicates like "being in love" being applied anything less than than entire persons makes no sense as Tyler Burge as pointed out:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

This basically repeats the same exact thing as above, so I don't get why you're listing them as separate arguments.

I agree that neuroscience is often descriptive rather than explanatory. However it's not like you (not you in particular, but you know what I mean... lol I guess yes even you in particular) have a better explanation let alone one that provides empirical evidence. If you do, lessee it.

The author writes, "Those things are psychological — not, in any evident way, neural." Obviously neural activity impacts psychology even if they are not one in the same. Anyone into psychology knows that it's based on both biology and experience (nature and nurture). So this guy's point that "The idea that the neural can replace the psychological is the same idea that led to thinking that all psychological ills can be cured with drugs" is moot. I don't think anyone believes that drugs can cure all psychological ills, because some illnesses are based specifically on experience (such as PTSD) - not one's "natural" or "original" brain chemistry alone.

Fourth off, there's a reason why almost no one who studies these issues extensively (yes, including atheists) is a type-identity theorist anymore - that went out with the 70's for very good reason.

Yep. So what's your take on it?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 4:24:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 9:43:05 AM, inferno wrote:
Love is God. Period.

Love is ice cream. Period.

It is because I say so and because I define ice cream that way. So it must be true :)
President of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 5:38:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In addition to love, there are fear, hunger, fatigue, loyalty to community, desire for security and a whole host of human instincts and emotion. They are the result of evolution that leads to human survival. Love supports pair bonding which facilitates creation and care for children. It's easy to go through the list and match them up with attributes that help the human species to succeed.

I'm not sure if every instinct is played out with chemistry, but it seems most of them are. The root cause is preserving the species. Humans have a lot of individual variability, but that's what's needed to drive evolution. Species that have little variability, e.g. horseshoe crabs, don't evolve much.

Two of the more interesting instincts are the desire to assert moral superiority and the desire to explain everything. I think they clearly relate to the survival of the species.