Umm interesting. On the one hand it is possible for a man feeling the emotion of intense anger to not 'show' this in any external manner at all, and I would guess barring some kind of brain scan we realy would not know of his anger. Yet if we where to ask him what emotion he is feeling, he could certianly tell us.
We have all felt emotion and so I guess we automaticaly belive that others of our species are capable of feeling the same. So I guess empiricaly we can say that emotions exist, as we have them on a personal level and we have all witnessed some emotion in others. So what of what OM says, is there some truth in there? There may well be I think. On 30 Jan, 02:13, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > From the fact fact that OM chooses not to "equate emotions with > apparent physical or vocal expressions" how does it follow "doesn't > believe in gravity either"? For as Ed Feser points out inhttp://bit.ly/5zQCc7 > "That a certain method provides us with reliable and useful > information about some domain gives us no reason whatsoever to think > that what it tells us exists is /all/ that exists". > > On Jan 29, 12:02 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > By that reasoning you don't believe in gravity either... > > > On Jan 29, 10:26 am, 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%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> > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
