On 29 Jan, 14:46, 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.
>
{snicker} Yup and you can thank God for that. ;-)
Just had to sneak that in!!
Have a good weekend!!
> 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> > <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%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 -- 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%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.
