Additionally, even love is creatable, with the right combination of serotonin, endorphins, and oxytocin. Ever taken MDMA? You'll develop an intense *philos* with those around you while under the effects.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote: > We most certainly have the capability; fortunately, the vast majority of us > also have the ethics to not pursue such action. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Pat <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On 29 Jan, 08:06, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > I’ll just claim that emotions do not exist due to lack of direct >> > > (external) observation any more than experiences of the divine exist. >> > >> > emotions are observable and testable, just find someone you don't like >> > and start pushing buttons. not only that but they can be artificially >> > triggered in a lab. >> >> Have they artificially induced an individual to feel sexual love >> towards their own children, yet? Or is that unethical? Can they >> induce an individual to no longer recognise themselves or to no longer >> have thoughts? Or do we need to recall Dr. Mengele to work out some >> finer points? ;-) >> >> > >> > On Jan 28, 9:18 pm, 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, >> > > 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%[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.-Hidequotedtext- >> > >> > > > > > - 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%[email protected]> >> <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 -- 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. >> >> > -- 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.
