Gravity is measured the same way. You are arbitrarily dismissing scientific method. That's fine...if you're a creationist.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:26 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > “…emotions are observable and testable…” – FID > > This is true IF one equates ‘emotions’ with apparent physical and or > vocal expressions. I don’t. I see the latter as mere results and/or > expressions of the former. > Thus, 'the lab' has still not found an emotion. > > On Jan 29, 12:06 am, 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. > > > > 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.
