Careful Bill, I'm armed with brain penetrating electrodes to make you experience emotion, oops, I mean detect your emotions. Sartre just said emotions exist without explanation, somewhat unhelpful. We can operate with operational definitions of them and I see a bit of sense in that as we talk about them. What can 'electrodes' or 'scans' detect? And what 'small world' might we do this in? I'm pretty sure you've given the right hints above. I know you more as a scientist than the man who sends me religious icons from time to time (which are welcome). I know myself as a diabetic whose 'emotions' often run biological havoc as well as as scientist and in many other ways. The bifurcation of nature may well be a mistake, yet needing oil we would both heat up oil-shale rather than some other rock. There are many observation states, including ones in which to 'see' light with the darkness in it and to knot it. Einstein had to do a lot of work to accept light into physical reality and even this work may not be enough and merely form a language-game that may eventually not be as 'useful' as what replaces it. Biology has emotions in its language games, not necessarily focused in the individual - collective presence seems to make a difference. Everything solid melts into air - etc. Some say there are no social facts to treat as things, but seem confused as to what 'things' are. They turn out to be addresses in space-time. Wars are not 'things' either, but seem very 'real'. Blair is on at the Iraq Enquiry in a couple of hours, I will see him as a putrefying evil evangelist caught with his trousers down, excusing himself through a relationship with god. Will I be wrong? Rumour has it he will be 45 minutes late!
On 29 Jan, 05:18, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Just addressing one on the list Chris, if I were more of a skeptic, > I’d make a big fuss about how neither I nor anyone else has ever seen > or touched an emotion. Yes, I’ve felt emotion(s) in a slightly > different meaning of the term ‘feel’.[internally] Yet, this is > subjective to the max. And, yes, there are physiological correlates to > people’s subjective reporting on what they feel. And again, such > correlates are not the emotion itself. So, as a free thinking skeptic, > I’ll just claim that emotions do not exist due to lack of direct > (external) observation any more than experiences of the divine exist. > And I don’t even consider any of this a mystery nor do I embrace faith > or revelation. And, I do embrace the scientific method. > > On Jan 28, 6:39 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On each of those topics, no faith is required in an empirical stance. > > Emotions exist, are measurable, have an underlying physiological mechanism, > > which can be fine tuned or adjusted via externalities. Intuition is > > subconscious analysis. We do it, it's observable, and as would be expected, > > is certainly nothing like "ESP". Vitality, attention? I don't understand > > their inclusion. By vitality, do you mean how energetic someone is, or how > > healthy? Why would that be a matter of faith? Same with attention...how is > > focus a faith issue? Charm? Do you mean an accelerated understanding and > > capability within interpersonal ritualistic behaviour? Love is easy as > > well...assuming you're willing to define it first. > > > Those who think that science doesn't cover all the tenets and facets of > > human behaviour, aren't viewing those things from a scientific perspective, > > which makes sense...once you begin to analyze them from a scientific > > perspective, they lose their mystery, and there is an appeal to the mystery, > > for those who need faith. > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:31 AM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > I wonder about “having faith in” things like: emotions, intuition, > > > vitality, attention, charm etc. How does that work? Does one require > > > having ‘empirical’ proof of such things? Note that I’ve left ‘love’ > > > off of the list too. > > > > On Jan 28, 5:57 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes, Pat, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know. > > > > > However, you're mistaking the empiricist stance, as so many theists do. > > > > > I will believe something when I am presented with empirical evidence for > > > its > > > > existence. Until such time, I do not expend belief. There is no > > > > empirical > > > > evidence for a soul, therefore I do not believe in such a thing. You > > > > have > > > > faith that souls are comprised of fields of energy. I do not. You have > > > faith > > > > that humans possess souls to begin with. I do not. This is not a faith > > > based > > > > stance; it's a faithless stance. I'm not sure why that concept is so > > > > difficult for those with faith to understand. Did you start out with > > > faith, > > > > and simply can't conceive of not believing in something not implicitly > > > > proven? Neither Ian nor I have implicitly stated "There is no soul, > > > > there > > > is > > > > no God". We simply note that lacking evidence for such, we can't have > > > faith > > > > in it. > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that there is no > > > > > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone claims > > > the > > > > > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim must be > > > > > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that ther eis no > > > > > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. There > > > > > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is a 'field > > > > > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, I know > > > > > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but that > > > > > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means it hasn't > > > > > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when Uranus and > > > > > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into existence when > > > > > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot thing is > > > > > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've said > > > > > before many times, just because you have not detected something is not > > > > > evidence that it does not exist. > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups > > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > > .com> > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > . > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > .com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
