NationStates Jolt Archive

Evenin' ladies and gents. In the interest of argument and because I feel I need to express myself I decided to make this thread.

I am new, relatively, so bare with me.

This thread is response to three seperate debates that I have been privy to in recent days. The first is the classical "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate.

Let me begin by saying that I know little of Creationism, I theorize however that it is largely based on the believe that God mad the world. In response, I disagree, fully and absolutely, to this therum. Mainly because evidence indicates that the world existed before God "created" it. And yes, I know, there are religious arguments that state this or that, but most of them just seem flawed and hastily strung together to validate the religion. But in opposition, I don't believe in the evolutionary theory. It does not make sense to me. I know evolution exists. But the evolutionary theory, as it was explained to me at least, just seems incredibly flawed. The Theory of Evolution, as I understand it and I may be incorrect here, theorizes that we all started as primordial ooze, evolved into fish, who evolved into land creatures, who evolved into etc., Now, I know evolution is fact, it has been proven many times. But here's the flaws in this theorum as I see it and I will phrase them as questions as I'm sure there are rationalities that I never learned. ((To be fair, I've only a cursory knowledge of the Theory at best.))

First, special differentiation: The track line of Evolutional Theory, by my understanding, is; Goo, Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Mamamal, Man. Admittedly I'm sure there's a more detailed and accurate chart. But if evolution did take this path then how do you explain the multitude of creatures. If we evolved from the same Primordial Goo wouldn't we have all evolved equally? I mean. If we all started at point A and went to point B to point C then why are we at Point F and Bears are at point K? I have a theory of my own on this but what I know of evolution theory wouldn't support it.

Second, continued evolution: Now, it's my understanding evolution reacts to an enviromental need. While it isn't clear exactly how humanity evolved there are actually humans who were in almost every part of the known world. (The Americas, Africa, Asia, etc.) This is largely explained by the theory of Pangea. Which I can believe, but if Pangea is true then wouldn't we all have had similar enviromental needs. Or at least large groups of us? What I'm getting at is... there are several Primates who live in similar enviroments to one another, why then are there two distinct variants of the same species.. and why is there only one humanus adaption. You would think that one of these other creatures, bears or tigers or lions, oh my, might have had the same needs to evolve into have an apposable(sp?) thumb, or something along the way. I mean, I suppose it could have happend (in refrence to the races of humans) but then why do we all have the same DNA structures when the animals have differing structures? (I believe, again science is not my strongest suit.) More directly the question boils down to, if the evolutionary theory is acurate then why are there no Salmon evolving into amphibians, or lions evolving into apes? Or other such things to that effect.

Those are the only two I can think of at the moment. I have my own theories, but I want to learn more about the evolutionary theory to see if my ideas work with, or against, it.

Don't worry. Myth and Religion will be coming up as well. Most likely later today. When I have time.

Any explanations and responses are appreciated. Clarifications and rationalizations welcome.

Don't worry. Myth and Religion will be coming up as well. Most likely later today. When I have time.

...but that's what worries me.

<Snip>
First, special differentiation:<snip>
Environmental need as you described...

Second, continued evolution:

1. Pangea was a big place. It would corss different climates, therefore different need
2. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat. An opposable thumb can be just as useful as been able to run really fast from a survival point of view.

First, special differentiation: The track line of Evolutional Theory, by my understanding, is; Goo, Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Mamamal, Man. Admittedly I'm sure there's a more detailed and accurate chart.It's more like
ancestors of all life;
ancestors of humans, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish;
ancestors of humans, mammals, reptiles and amphibians;
ancestors of humans, mammals and reptiles;
ancestors of humans and mammals;
humans

Our ancestors weren't chimpanzee, but chimpanzees and we have a common ancestor that was neither.

But if evolution did take this path then how do you explain the multitude of creatures. If we evolved from the same Primordial Goo wouldn't we have all evolved equally?No, why would we? There are multiple niches to fill, multiple adaptive solutions for evolution to take. It's like saying everyone at the same primary school should end up with the same job.

I mean. If we all started at point A and went to point B to point C then why are we at Point F and Bears are at point K?Because evolution is not working toward a purpose. All that matters is that something survives to the next generation.

Give http://www.newscientist.com/evolutionmyths a try.

...but that's what worries me.

be afraid? Very afraid, then? Suppose.... and because of that. I am prompted to make a post. Thanks!

be afraid? Very afraid, then? Suppose.... and because of that. I am prompted to make a post. Thanks!

You're welcome and, if you're truly interested, take the time to read up on evolution because you should find it's a most beautiful explanation.

Others might put down their own favourites but I found The Blind Watchmaker to be one of the best because it's the one Dawkins' book where I feel he really enjoyed writing and that joy shines through the book.

It's more like
ancestors of all life;
ancestors of humans, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish;
ancestors of humans, mammals, reptiles and amphibians;
ancestors of humans, mammals and reptiles;
ancestors of humans and mammals;
humans

Our ancestors weren't chimpanzee, but chimpanzees and we have a common ancestor that was neither.

No, why would we? There are multiple niches to fill, multiple adaptive solutions for evolution to take. It's like saying everyone at the same primary school should end up with the same job.


Well yeah. I can see that. We all started as Monkey Breed A. But breed A moved into eviroments 1, 2, and 3 and were forced to evolve into Breeds B, C, and D respectively.

And what I meant, more directly state, was if we all started as Species A. Lived in enviroment 1. If Species A moved into enviroment 2 then wouldn't Species A evolve into Species B? The reason I ask is because there seems to me that there are several different species of animal who all live in one type of enviroment. I mean I suppose that one could argue that there are thousands of different enviroments under the water, I actually don't know how many really exists or the classification. But if only Species A, B, and C actually adapted and evolved to rise from out of the water. Etc.

The reason I ask this is a round-about to my theory. I don't believe we all started at Point A. I believe, and this is a belief as I have no proof. is that rather then we all started as one deposit of Primordial Goo, what if there was actually several deposits of Primordial Goo across the earth. This would explain several things about why certain creatures evolved the way they did. I could believe that. I mean, I can believe man evolved from monkies. But that makes more sense to me then. We all started as goo and evolved in the water into fish, moved out of the water and so forth. Because I have yet to see a scientist offer any valid proof that a frog could become a komodo dragon. (With the exception of a dinosaur turned chicken. But that was a specieal evolution)

In other words. I believe Primates can evolve into other kinds of primate. And fish can evolve into other kind of fish. But I've no record of say... a fish turning into say.... a mouse or something to that effect.

Mainly because evidence indicates that the world existed before God "created" it.

Eh?

But in opposition, I don't believe in the evolutionary theory. It does not make sense to me. I know evolution exists. But the evolutionary theory, as it was explained to me at least, just seems incredibly flawed.

This is nonsensical. You cannot 'know it exists' without believing in the theory that explains it. You can know there are a multitude of things on this planet, but that is not 'evolution'. You believe in a version of evolutionary theory, but you think the current version is not complete.

Now, I know evolution is fact, it has been proven many times.

No, it hasn't. It is a scientific theory with lots of evidence to support its claims.

And, in general, you assume to much of a goal in evolution. There are no goals other than to survive and breed.

The reason I ask this is a round-about to my theory. I don't believe we all started at Point A. I believe, and this is a belief as I have no proof. is that rather then we all started as one deposit of Primordial Goo, what if there was actually several deposits of Primordial Goo across the earth.
Evolution doesn't explicitly require all life to have come from a single source. There's nothing in current scientific thinking that would disagree with you, and what you've suggested is already acknowledged as a reasonable possibility.

The thing is, let's suppose replicators came from different protein sources. All that means is that some DNA (/proto-RNA or whatever) structures never competed for resources. This would be the case regardless of whether said structures were completely isolated or simply at opposite edges of the same blob of protein-milkshake. It doesn't actually change anything about our understanding of the evolutionary / biogenesis process.

No, it hasn't. It is a scientific theory with lots of evidence to support its claims.
Evolution is the process by which animal and plant species change across generations. I'd call that something we observe rather than something we hypothesise.

Theories of Evolution are things like genetics and natural selection that could be tested and verified, and Biogenesis is a class of theories of the origin of life that holds that living things have a purely physical origin and evolved out of that. But Evolution itself is a principle that theories exist to explain.

No, it hasn't. It is a scientific theory with lots of evidence to support its claims.

And, in general, you assume to much of a goal in evolution. There are no goals other than to survive and breed.

You are correct. Though remembering most of this was from information I learned in school some time ago. I guess I kind of combined bits of evidence(fossils of the ancestors of creatures that exist currently) and my understanding of evolution(repeated adaption of a species in the interest of survival, primarily.) And forgot it was only a deduction and not a recorded fact.

And what I meant, more directly state, was if we all started as Species A. Lived in enviroment 1. If Species A moved into enviroment 2 then wouldn't Species A evolve into Species B?Species A might develop into a different species; and you could call it species B if it didn't yet exist. But if it is already adapted well enough to the new environment, there would be no pressure to change.

The reason I ask is because there seems to me that there are several different species of animal who all live in one type of enviroment.But even in one environment there may be different roles a species can fulfill. And specializing may be adaptive.
For example consider a type of bird that can feed on two types of seeds, but by specializing in one type or the other it can do better. Then having two species rather than one in the same environment is more adaptive. The two subspecies might then genetically drift apart so that interbreeding becomes impossible, and you get two properly different species. (This would be sympatric speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation), rather than the more commonly known allopatric speciation due to geographic separation.)

In any case, the common ancestor theory is supported by the genetic similarities between species. Otherwise there's really no reason why we should share genes with, say, bananas.

No, it hasn't. It is a scientific theory with lots of evidence to support its claims.

No, that is the Theory of evolution (through natural selection). Evolution itself is a fact - the theory offers a comprehensive framework for explaining how and why evolution takes place and what its consequences are based on overwhelming evidence.

Which "clearly" means that creationism, with almost no supporting evidence, has just as much value. Just like Mount Everest and a molehill are both higher than the surrounding ground and therefor completely equal.

Second, continued evolution: Now, it's my understanding evolution reacts to an enviromental need. While it isn't clear exactly how humanity evolved there are actually humans who were in almost every part of the known world. (The Americas, Africa, Asia, etc.) This is largely explained by the theory of Pangea.
No it's not. Continentally speaking, the world was pretty much the same as it is now when humans came about. Human presence in almost every part of the known world is explained by migration.

I recently saw a video trying to proof evolution. It also sought to diss Christians but the info is not biased.

If you wanna see some real scientific terms and see how the goo turned into primordial cells see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

If you wanna see an EXPLANATION(not disproof or proving anything) of the theory, see this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

Now their both 10 minutes each, but it'll really help you understand if you watch both.

And no this is not advertising. Just really like the vids after i saw them

While most of my evolutionary questions have been cleared up. There's really no conflict in my own theory and the running theory of evolution. So I'll bring up my next debate.

God: Fact or Fiction?

This question is two-fold. It's a mix of "Is God real?" and "What/Who is God, exactly?"

The first question then. It's not that I don't believe in God, right though, it's that in fact and actuality there is no evidence of God. And I'm not talking about God making his pressence known. But consider, if you will, this. Christians believe in God because they believe the Bible. The Bible is believed to be the Word of God. Christians believe this because the Bible tells them so. Does anyone see the failing? You believe the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible tells you it is the Word of God? The Bible was written by Man. It's a bunch of stories and notes and writings of various people that tell a story and their takes on God and Jesus and his teachings. Collected by one guy who put it all together. Not one word in there is written by God. Or evene Jesus.

I offer this challenge. Some one, anyone, offer me any validity or verification to the existence of God that is not based on something the Bible told you. Let's go for it

Second question, if God does exist, and I am notan atheist, it's possible there is a deity beyond man. But the question is then, is God what Christians define, or Catholics, or your neighbor Bob defines him as? There are so many variaints.How can we know which is the real one or can we at all? Thoughts? Opininons?

While most of my evolutionary questions have been cleared up. There's really no conflict in my own theory and the running theory of evolution. So I'll bring up my next debate.

God: Fact or Fiction?

This question is two-fold. It's a mix of "Is God real?" and "What/Who is God, exactly?"

The first question then. It's not that I don't believe in God, right though, it's that in fact and actuality there is no evidence of God. And I'm not talking about God making his pressence known. But consider, if you will, this. Christians believe in God because they believe the Bible. The Bible is believed to be the Word of God. Christians believe this because the Bible tells them so. Does anyone see the failing? You believe the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible tells you it is the Word of God? The Bible was written by Man. It's a bunch of stories and notes and writings of various people that tell a story and their takes on God and Jesus and his teachings. Collected by one guy who put it all together. Not one word in there is written by God. Or evene Jesus.

I offer this challenge. Some one, anyone, offer me any validity or verification to the existence of God that is not based on something the Bible told you. Let's go for it

Second question, if God does exist, and I am notan atheist, it's possible there is a deity beyond man. But the question is then, is God what Christians define, or Catholics, or your neighbor Bob defines him as? There are so many variaints.How can we know which is the real one or can we at all? Thoughts? Opininons?
^This is basically why I'm an agnostic.

To answer it quite simply: When you have two people agreeing on the second question you can possibly establish the answer to the first:p

God, is usually defined differently by everyone so arguing about it is really like a tower of Babel.

No it's not. Continentally speaking, the world was pretty much the same as it is now when humans came about. Human presence in almost every part of the known world is explained by migration.

Well there is a bit of a flaw. In order for that migartion to have occured, a bridge of earth had to exist that extended to the Americas from one of the other continents. As well as to Australia and Africa. I doubt they could swim and I'm not sure they had boats at the onset that would ferry them across the oceans.

Is God real?
The total lack of evidence for the existence of a god suggests it isn't.

What/Who is God, exactly?
An idea, given the answer above. Or rather, several differing ideas.

Well there is a bit of a flaw. In order for that migartion to have occured, a bridge of earth had to exist that extended to the Americas from one of the other continents. As well as to Australia and Africa. I doubt they could swim and I'm not sure they had boats at the onset that would ferry them across the oceans.

Asia and America are connected. See: The Arctic.

Well there is a bit of a flaw. In order for that migartion to have occured, a bridge of earth had to exist that extended to the Americas from one of the other continents. As well as to Australia and Africa. I doubt they could swim and I'm not sure they had boats at the onset that would ferry them across the oceans.Like I said, continentally speaking the world was pretty much what it is today. The glaciers present on most of the continents lowered the sea level, thus allowing for a land bridge at what is now the Bering Strait. Generally, the climate was very different to a pretty big effect, but Pangea wasn't around by the time the dinosaurs died out, so it certainly wasn't when humans first appeared.

Well yeah. I can see that. We all started as Monkey Breed A. But breed A moved into eviroments 1, 2, and 3 and were forced to evolve into Breeds B, C, and D respectively.

And what I meant, more directly state, was if we all started as Species A. Lived in enviroment 1. If Species A moved into enviroment 2 then wouldn't Species A evolve into Species B? The reason I ask is because there seems to me that there are several different species of animal who all live in one type of enviroment.

There are thousands of different ecological niches within one environment, each one favouring a slightly different set of mutations and adaptations.

Within a rotting log there are niches for decomposing bacteria, decomposing insects, predatory insects to feed on the decomposing insects, organisms hating light living under the log, organisms that feed on the bark, organisms that feed on the inner part of the log, etc. And that's just a rotting log, let alone everything else in the forest - just one environment.

Also, you need to take into account the phenomenally enormous timescales that evolution takes place over.

In relation to "birds don't evolve into mice" - yes that is true. Take a look at taxonomical classification.
Eukaryotic cells developed, which went on to form the kingdoms of animals, plants, fungi and protoctists. So animals never evolved into plants and vice versa, they simply shared a common ancestor.
In the animal kingdom chordata evolved, and from them vertebrates evolved. Depending on their ecological niches some vertebrates went on to become birds, and some went on to become mammals, and some eventually mice. So birds never evolved into mice or vice versa, they simply share a common ancestry.

Well there is a bit of a flaw. In order for that migartion to have occured, a bridge of earth had to exist that extended to the Americas from one of the other continents. As well as to Australia and Africa. I doubt they could swim and I'm not sure they had boats at the onset that would ferry them across the oceans.

The sea level was much lower in some periods and so the Bering straights were a land/ice mass, when humans crossed to the Americas, as were the Philipines (even Britain was part of continental Europe). But in the case of the Philipines the gap wasn't covered completely, though people had by this time (40,000 years ago) boats, and colonised both Australia and Oceania. It's all to do with Ice ages and subsequent hot periods.

There are thousands of different ecological niches within one environment, each one favouring a slightly different set of mutations and adaptations.

Within a rotting log there are niches for decomposing bacteria, decomposing insects, predatory insects to feed on the decomposing insects, organisms hating light living under the log, organisms that feed on the bark, organisms that feed on the inner part of the log, etc. And that's just a rotting log, let alone everything else in the forest - just one environment.

Also, you need to take into account the phenomenally enormous timescales that evolution takes place over.

In relation to "birds don't evolve into mice" - yes that is true. Take a look at taxonomical classification.
Eukaryotic cells developed, which went on to form the kingdoms of animals, plants, fungi and protoctists. So animals never evolved into plants and vice versa, they simply shared a common ancestor.
In the animal kingdom chordata evolved, and from them vertebrates evolved. Depending on their ecological niches some vertebrates went on to become birds, and some went on to become mammals, and some eventually mice. So birds never evolved into mice or vice versa, they simply share a common ancestry.


Now that is clear and concise. Thank you very much. That answers both questions in one sweep.

The sea level was much lower in some periods and so the Bering straights were a land/ice mass, when humans crossed to the Americas, as were the Philipines (even Britain was part of continental Europe). But in the case of the Philipines the gap wasn't covered completely, though people had by this time (40,000 years ago) boats, and colonised both Australia and Oceania. It's all to do with Ice ages and subsequent hot periods.

Geography. Not my strong suit. Then again what is? But yes. I could see a land bridge. Though a few questions spring to mind of dynamics. I wonder if they had to resort to cannibalish on the long trips across.

Geography. Not my strong suit. Then again what is? But yes. I could see a land bridge. Though a few questions spring to mind of dynamics. I wonder if they had to resort to cannibalish on the long trips across.

Possibly. Cannibalism is not unheard of amongst humans after all. Some cultures even considered it a sign of respect.

Well there is a bit of a flaw. In order for that migartion to have occured, a bridge of earth had to exist that extended to the Americas from one of the other continents. As well as to Australia and Africa. I doubt they could swim and I'm not sure they had boats at the onset that would ferry them across the oceans.

I thought that someone had proved that australia was contacted by boats? little conues.

Geography. Not my strong suit. Then again what is? But yes. I could see a land bridge. Though a few questions spring to mind of dynamics. I wonder if they had to resort to cannibalish on the long trips across.Wikipedia has the answer:
Land Bridge Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_migration_to_the_New_World#Land_bridge_theory)

Also known as The Bering Strait Theory or Beringia theory, Land Bridge theory has been widely accepted since the 1930s. This model of migration into the New World proposes that people migrated from Siberia into Alaska, tracking big game animal herds. They were able to cross between the two continents by a land bridge called the Bering Land Bridge, which spanned what is now the Bering Strait, during the Wisconsin glaciation, the last major stage of the Pleistocene beginning 50,000 years ago and ending some 10,000 years ago, when ocean levels were 60 metres (200 ft) lower than today. This information is gathered using oxygen isotope records from deep-sea cores. An exposed land bridge that was at least 1,000 miles wide existed between Siberia and the western coast of Alaska. In the "short chronology" version, from the archaeological evidence gathered, it was concluded that this culture of big game hunters crossed the Bering Strait at least 12,000 years ago and could have eventually reached the southern tip of South America by 11,000 years ago.

I thought that someone had proved that australia was contacted by boats? little conues.

I remember once that I read somewhere the Australia was actually a colony of criminals from britain

I remember once that I read somewhere the Australia was actually a colony of criminals from britainSo was the state of Georgia.

I remember once that I read somewhere the Australia was actually a colony of criminals from britain

We did have a prison colony there so there is some truth to that but there was indigous tribes there (the aborigines) I half remember reading that they got there by canoe

First, special differentiation: The track line of Evolutional Theory, by my understanding, is; Goo, Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Mamamal, Man. Admittedly I'm sure there's a more detailed and accurate chart.

that's more like the great chain of being than evolution.

But if evolution did take this path then how do you explain the multitude of creatures. If we evolved from the same Primordial Goo wouldn't we have all evolved equally? I mean. If we all started at point A and went to point B to point C then why are we at Point F and Bears are at point K? I have a theory of my own on this but what I know of evolution theory wouldn't support it.

because evolution is a branching bush rather than a linear progression. evolution works by populations of organisms splitting off down divergent evolutionary paths. you wind up with something like this (and this is greatly simplified from the full picture):
http://tolweb.org/tree/img/toloverview.jpg
http://tolweb.org/tree/

Second, continued evolution: Now, it's my understanding evolution reacts to an enviromental need. While it isn't clear exactly how humanity evolved there are actually humans who were in almost every part of the known world. (The Americas, Africa, Asia, etc.) This is largely explained by the theory of Pangea.

pangea is millions and millions of years too early for this explanation. humans just walked there (or took boats in some case, and planes more recently), and did so fairly recently.

What I'm getting at is... there are several Primates who live in similar enviroments to one another, why then are there two distinct variants of the same species.. and why is there only one humanus adaption.

a lack of time and genetic isolation. if we had been separated for longer (rather than only really briefly being separated and currently experiencing fairly high levels of migration) we might be more divergent.

You would think that one of these other creatures, bears or tigers or lions, oh my, might have had the same needs to evolve into have an apposable(sp?) thumb, or something along the way.

it doesn't work like that. having opposable thumbs requires a string of mutations that affect the growth and development of our limbs, genes activated in certain sequences, etc. if you don't get such mutations in a population, or if they don't become fixed within it, you don't wind up with the trait. so even if having opposable thumbs would be very valuable to lions (and i'm not sure it would be in their current niche), evolution can only work on the mutations that actually occur.

now in some instances you do have convergent evolution, where similar traits separately evolve in groups that didn't inherit the trait from a common ancestor. wings are a really good example, as they have evolved at least four times (maybe more, anybody know anything about bugs?) - insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats. but merely being in a position where flight would be nice doesn't get you flight, and each time it arose through different evolutionary paths and processes.

More directly the question boils down to, if the evolutionary theory is acurate then why are there no Salmon evolving into amphibians, or lions evolving into apes? Or other such things to that effect.

because evolution just can't do that. additionally, species already exist on fitness plateaus, barring a change in environment or an extremely rare sort of point mutation that could lead to a different and higher fitness plateau by skipping right over the valley between.

lions and salmon are evolving, all the time. but they evolve within the evolutionary constraints in which they find themselves.

The other issue with evolution, is that some things are more likely to evolve than others. With humans, an important fact is that we are observing ourselves. We exist. If we didn't exist, we couldn't be observing ourselves and having this conversation. If the chance that human level sentience would arrive through evolution is 1 in a billion, that is irrelevent. We can't observe all the other failed chances, as we don't exist with those failed chances.
So the fact that cats didn't evolve in to erect tool users, is not relevant. just because we did, doesn't make it a likely evolution. An example of this is eyes. There are about 8 ddifferent types of eyes on the planet. The insect eyes, our eyes, and a lot more. Check out Dawkins. Thus eyesight is most likely an "easy" mutation.

I thought that someone had proved that australia was contacted by boats? little conues.

more or less had to be, since even at the lowest sea levels at the right time frame the gap was too wide to see land on the other side, and it is difficult to imagine a viable population just sort of washing up there.

more or less had to be, since even at the lowest sea levels at the right time frame the gap was too wide to see land on the other side, and it is difficult to imagine a viable population just sort of washing up there.

thought there was never a land bridge to there! yea i get a cookie

*eat a cookie*

"The evolution theory as it was explained to me"

I think we should first illustrate ourselves with PRESENT review of evolutionary theory, and then, yes, debate it.

On the other hand, I think you americans are being hostages of a fanatic christian think tank that somehow decided to attack the evolutionary theory just like the catholic church attacked the pagans centuries ago.

I think there's some issues more important to debate: Not the past of the Earth, but the FUTURE of it.

Forgive the offtopic, but I strongly recommend www.storyofstuff.com (http://www.storyofstuff.com), an apolitical and unprejudiced flash animation/video explaining the suicidal consumerism cycle we are immerse on.

Of course, If we think the world has been created by a god, it we may think that that divinity granted us the right of use and misuse of this planet.

On the other hand, If we assume that evolution is a fragile system that brought us here, and is upon us and ONLY us to survive... we better start to take care of this little blue spot and in the mean time, we should explore space ASAP.

Croatoan Green, you are conducting this thread on the internet, arguably the largest and most convenient research resource ever invented. Every one of your posited topic questions so far has been qualified by your disclaimer that you don't really know that much about it. Why don't you look it up first, then, since you're here, on the internet, with it all right at your fingertips, as it were?

If you did that, then you could come into your own argument knowing a bit more about Creationism, about the Theory of Evolution, about geography, about human migration over the last 20,000+ years, about Pangea, about who was already living in Australia before the white folks showed up, and about the timelines on which all this happened. Seriously, none of this is new, and none of it is secret.

Sadly, the one thing that the internet cannot give you answers about is the god question, but really, who cares? I mean, I know we argue it endlessly, but...well, there's a way to describe that pastime but it's not polite.

Our ancestors weren't chimpanzee, but chimpanzees and we have a common ancestor that was neither.

though that ancestor sure would look like a chimp, and be classed into the chimp genus.

Sadly, the one thing that the internet cannot give you answers about is the god question,...
I protest that. There's literally hundreds of answers out here in the web!

I wonder if they had to resort to cannibalish on the long trips across.

even now, with higher sea levels than when the major wave of (modern) human expansion occurred, it isn't actually that far between places. besides, the polynesians managed huge ocean trips in little tiny craft without having to eat the crew. the trick is to bring supplies.

While most of my evolutionary questions have been cleared up. There's really no conflict in my own theory and the running theory of evolution. So I'll bring up my next debate.

God: Fact or Fiction?

This question is two-fold. It's a mix of "Is God real?" and "What/Who is God, exactly?"

The first question then. It's not that I don't believe in God, right though, it's that in fact and actuality there is no evidence of God. And I'm not talking about God making his pressence known. But consider, if you will, this. Christians believe in God because they believe the Bible. The Bible is believed to be the Word of God. Christians believe this because the Bible tells them so. Does anyone see the failing? You believe the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible tells you it is the Word of God? The Bible was written by Man. It's a bunch of stories and notes and writings of various people that tell a story and their takes on God and Jesus and his teachings. Collected by one guy who put it all together. Not one word in there is written by God. Or evene Jesus.

I offer this challenge. Some one, anyone, offer me any validity or verification to the existence of God that is not based on something the Bible told you. Let's go for it

Second question, if God does exist, and I am notan atheist, it's possible there is a deity beyond man. But the question is then, is God what Christians define, or Catholics, or your neighbor Bob defines him as? There are so many variaints.How can we know which is the real one or can we at all? Thoughts? Opininons?

There's actually plenty of evidence for God(s). Lots of people claim to have had personal experience with deity/spirits, which they often use to justify their use of the scriptures they favor. We even have plenty of books written about the subject of deity. The issue is that the evidence doesn't meet the standards of the scientific community, not that the evidence doesn't exist.

Of course, a methodological approach that systematically excludes non-materialistic explanations will, big surprise, exclude the possibility of non-materialistic conceptions of deity as explanation for anything.

When someone presents to me the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of a non-materialistic deity according to scientific standards, my response is usually along the lines of, "No shit." You might as well say that in the set of rational numbers, there are no irrational numbers. It's true, but hardly profound or surprising.

Geography. Not my strong suit. Then again what is? But yes. I could see a land bridge. Though a few questions spring to mind of dynamics. I wonder if they had to resort to cannibalish on the long trips across.

Animals would be just as likely to migrate along young padwan. Also land bridges don't occur for 5 minutes, more like several millenia. They'd likely have whole sustainable ecosystems like everywhere else: thus plants, mushrooms, small animals... you know... food.

So was the state of Georgia.

though if we are getting technically about Georgia during the days when it was populated by criminals, it was a religious reform colony.
No alcohol, no slaves, and no harassing the Indians. as soon as the founder died rich people with slaves moved in.

I protest that. There's literally hundreds of answers out here in the web!
Well, it IS a very popular pastime... :D

though that ancestor sure would look like a chimp, and be classed into the chimp genus.
no, why?

no, why?

because there isn't really much that keeps us out of the same genus, and our 'human' traits are far more derived than ancestral, as is fairly obvious when looking at human evolutionary history.

Second question, if God does exist, and I am not an atheist, it's possible there is a deity beyond man. But the question is then, is God what Christians define, or Catholics, or your neighbor Bob defines him as? There are so many variaints.How can we know which is the real one or can we at all? Thoughts? Opininons?

First of all, is god knowable?

By that, I am asking if god has qualities such that she is perceivable by the human mind. Now, this gets tricky because we have to define what we mean by 'know'. If you mean the scientific definition of knowledge (testable, falsifiable, verifiable), then I would argue that it is impossible to know god in such a way with our current technology.

But that is not the only definition of knowledge. For example, we know Napoleon lost to Wellington at Waterloo, but we could not repeat such an event in controlled conditions. I know my kids love me, even though I cannot measure or test anything. So there are several different types of knowledge, and different ways of acquiring knowledge.

I would argue that one can have knowledge of god in non-scientific ways. The most immediate example is direct revelation, of course. Many people, including myself, have had personal revelations of what humans consider 'the divine'. However, none of this information can help us entirely understand god. This is because god is simply bigger than the human mind can handle. Any definition of god would be incomplete, simply because humans came up with it.

So how do we know who's right? The answer is that we don't. This fact, that we can only have incomplete knowledge of god, should make us very suspicious of those who profess to know god's mind, i.e. the clergy.

because there isn't really much that keeps us out of the same genus, and our 'human' traits are far more derived than ancestral, as is fairly obvious when looking at human evolutionary history.
Have you looked at a chimp recently?

Have you looked at a chimp recently?Have you shaved a chimp recently?
But seriously, "Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says" (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html).

But that is not the only definition of knowledge. For example, we know Napoleon lost to Wellington at Waterloo, but we could not repeat such an event in controlled conditions.

We can test it in the same way we do in any historical science, i.e. by making predictions based on a hypothesis and testing them. We do this by examining historical records and archeological finds.

I know my kids love me, even though I cannot measure or test anything. So there are several different types of knowledge, and different ways of acquiring knowledge.

You think your children love you based on the way they act (and also the way they don't act). You read about the occaisonal person in the news who believed that a famous person was in love with them based on no evidence (often without even having met the person) and you wouldn't call that knowledge, no?

Have you looked at a chimp recently?

yes. have you looked at a 'pithecine recently?

of course, i'm something of a lumper rather than a spliter - taxonomy is somewhat artificial above the species level. in any case, the common ancestor of humans and chimps would look a lot like a chimp, which is what i was saying.

We can test it in the same way we do in any historical science, i.e. by making predictions based on a hypothesis and testing them. We do this by examining historical records and archeological finds.

Yes, but that is not the same as recreating and observing the event in controlled circumstances. There is a qualitative difference between scientific methodologies and historical ones. There will never be another Wellington or Napoleon. We cannot repeat the experiment.

That does not mean that historical methodologies are completely different from scientific ones. As you point out, one can make hypotheses that predict certain things, and then one can test the prediction. If Wellington used cavalry, we should find trace of it in descriptions of the battle.

You think your children love you based on the way they act (and also the way they don't act). You read about the occaisonal person in the news who believed that a famous person was in love with them based on no evidence (often without even having met the person) and you wouldn't call that knowledge, no?

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Yes, but that is not the same as recreating and observing the event in controlled circumstances. There is a qualitative difference between scientific methodologies and historical ones. There will never be another Wellington or Napoleon. We cannot repeat the experiment.

That does not mean that historical methodologies are completely different from scientific ones. As you point out, one can make hypotheses that predict certain things, and then one can test the prediction. If Wellington used cavalry, we should find trace of it in descriptions of the battle.

Archaeology, Geology, Palaeontology and parts of Genetics are all scientific disciplines with scientific methodologies which deal almost exclusively with past events. Regardless, the point is that their predictions can be tested and measured and so have little apparent relevance to the question of an untestable God.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I was pointing out that the hypothesis 'my children love me' is not (or at least, should not) be an untestable one: an objective observer who had all the empirical data that you have regarding your children's' behaviour would be able to answer the question at least as accurately as you, and probably more so since they wouldn't have any emotional commitments to the answer.

I was pointing out that the hypothesis 'my children love me' is not (or at least, should not) be an untestable one: an objective observer who had all the empirical data that you have regarding your children's' behaviour would be able to answer the question at least as accurately as you, and probably more so since they wouldn't have any emotional commitments to the answer.

How does one empirically test for love?

How does one empirically test for love?
Why would anyone?

Why would anyone?Because they can! >=)

How does one empirically test for love?

The same way you test for gravity: you can't test for gravity directly so you look for the results of it. Similarly, you decide whether someone loves someone else or not based on what they do and say. You can never say for sure because of incomplete data and the possibility of deliberate deception, but fundamentally it's an empirical question (unless you're the person in question).

Archaeology, Geology, Palaeontology and parts of Genetics are all scientific disciplines with scientific methodologies which deal almost exclusively with past events. Regardless, the point is that their predictions can be tested and measured and so have little apparent relevance to the question of an untestable God.

I am discussing history. History is not unique in the sciences because it deals with unreproducible and unique events. Cosmology and evolutionary biology are examples of hard sciences that also deal with such data. All I am saying is that it is possible to have knowledge of that which can not be repeated in a lab. There are many examples of such knowledge and approaches to it. Moral knowledge is one example, and so is the knowledge of how to throw a ball or skip rope.

I was pointing out that the hypothesis 'my children love me' is not (or at least, should not) be an untestable one: an objective observer who had all the empirical data that you have regarding your children's' behaviour would be able to answer the question at least as accurately as you, and probably more so since they wouldn't have any emotional commitments to the answer.

That's entirely true. But that does not change the simple fact that I know it without having to do any tests and verification. Just because someone can have knowledge about something using scientific methodology does not mean that that is the only way to have knowledge of the situation.

That's entirely true. But that does not change the simple fact that I know it without having to do any tests and verification. Just because someone can have knowledge about something using scientific methodology does not mean that that is the only way to have knowledge of the situation.

Well, you tested and verified, although you did not perform tests.

The same way you test for gravity: you can't test for gravity directly so you look for the results of it. Similarly, you decide whether someone loves someone else or not based on what they do and say. You can never say for sure because of incomplete data and the possibility of deliberate deception, but fundamentally it's an empirical question (unless you're the person in question).

It's not the same as gravity, though. Gravity has a physical effect. Love is an emotion. The way one person feels love may not be the same as the way another does. The way one person acts as a result of that love will be different from the way another does.

And, here's the real kicker: any investigation of love relies completely and entirely on self-diagnosis. Either we are judging others' actions by what we do when we feel love or we are judging others' actions by what others have done when they said they felt love. There is no way at all of actually testing for love itself or even testing to see if two people mean the same thing when they say they feel love.

It's an inherently subjective subject and therefore there isn't really an appropriate empirical test.

It's not the same as gravity, though. Gravity has a physical effect. Love is an emotion. The way one person feels love may not be the same as the way another does. The way one person acts as a result of that love will be different from the way another does.

And, here's the real kicker: any investigation of love relies completely and entirely on self-diagnosis. Either we are judging others' actions by what we do when we feel love or we are judging others' actions by what others have done when they said they felt love. There is no way at all of actually testing for love itself.

It's an inherently subjective subject and therefore there isn't really an appropriate empirical test.Well, to be honest (though Bottle will probably be able to prove me wrong on this) there's reactions in your brain that can be measured.

How does one empirically test for love?
Love is a word describing a certain emotion caused by certain brain activities. And those brain activities can be emperically tested.
That's entirely true. But that does not change the simple fact that I know it without having to do any tests and verification. Just because someone can have knowledge about something using scientific methodology does not mean that that is the only way to have knowledge of the situation.
Knowledge: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.

Scientific knowledge falls under definition 1, and the knowledge you mean looks more like definition 2. But don't forget, that the fact that you have that knowledge does not mean that that knowledge is in accordance with reality, e.a if the knowledge is true.

How does one empirically test for love?

i know this is often trotted out as an example in these discussions, but it seems to me that it is fundamentally silly. we test for love all the fucking time in our day to day lives.

how the hell would relationships even work if we were completely unable to empirically identify love? shit, we even have some sort of rough scale of love. even the existence of people who are just pretending so they can get in our pants highlights our abilities here - the very idea would make no sense at all otherwise.

I am discussing history. History is not unique in the sciences because it deals with unreproducible and unique events. Cosmology and evolutionary biology are examples of hard sciences that also deal with such data. All I am saying is that it is possible to have knowledge of that which can not be repeated in a lab.

Yes, but your original argument was based on the idea that historical sciences are an exception to the standard scientific requirements of testability, falsifiabitity and verifiability:

First of all, is god knowable?

By that, I am asking if god has qualities such that she is perceivable by the human mind. Now, this gets tricky because we have to define what we mean by 'know'. If you mean the scientific definition of knowledge (testable, falsifiable, verifiable), then I would argue that it is impossible to know god in such a way with our current technology.

But that is not the only definition of knowledge. For example, we know Napoleon lost to Wellington at Waterloo, but we could not repeat such an event in controlled conditions. I know my kids love me, even though I cannot measure or test anything. So there are several different types of knowledge, and different ways of acquiring knowledge.

If you admit that historical sciences are still sciences then your argument falls apart.

There are many examples of such knowledge and approaches to it. Moral knowledge is one example,

This is simply begging the question unless you can prove that there is an objective standard of truth underpinning moral statements.

and so is the knowledge of how to throw a ball or skip rope.

Unless you're very unusual indeed you probably learnt to throw and skip well by practicing: i.e. experimenting with different ways of doing it and adopting the most effective ones.

That's entirely true. But that does not change the simple fact that I know it without having to do any tests and verification.

Just because someone can have knowledge about something using scientific methodology does not mean that that is the only way to have knowledge of the situation.

No you don't. You may think they love you, but unless you know something about their past behaviour and actions then this is just speculation, on a par with the weirdos I mentioned earlier who believe that celebrities are in love with them.

Suppose that, at some point after your children started loving you, you were locked in a dark cell and never had any contact with them again, neither did you receive any information on them. Suppose that, at some point, they stopped loving you: how would you know? You wouldn't. You'd only be able to tell if you had some idea of what they were doing and saying.

Well, to be honest (though Bottle will probably be able to prove me wrong on this) there's reactions in your brain that can be measured.

we don't need to go all the way down to neuroscience to start measuring. we'll find all sorts of good mechanism stuff down there, but significant aspects of love are visible to everyone, and any explanation that doesn't include them is probably missing something.

Well, to be honest (though Bottle will probably be able to prove me wrong on this) there's reactions in your brain that can be measured.

....again, based on self-diagnosis. We ask people if they are feeling love. They say yes. We look at things going on in the brain.

But the ultimate question is still decided by what the person says they are feeling. And how do we know that subject A and subject B are feeling the same thing? Or even anything close?

It's like trying to measure "pretty". If we show an aesthetically pleasing picture to a bunch of people, we might see similar brain function in each of them. But are they really feeling the same thing? Or even seeing the same thing? We have no way of knowing.

It's not the same as gravity, though. Gravity has a physical effect. Love is an emotion. The way one person feels love may not be the same as the way another does. The way one person acts as a result of that love will be different from the way another does.

And, here's the real kicker: any investigation of love relies completely and entirely on self-diagnosis. Either we are judging others' actions by what we do when we feel love or we are judging others' actions by what others have done when they said they felt love. There is no way at all of actually testing for love itself or even testing to see if two people mean the same thing when they say they feel love.

It's an inherently subjective subject and therefore there isn't really an appropriate empirical test.

Do you consider psychology to be a scientific discipline?

....again, based on self-diagnosis. We ask people if they are feeling love. They say yes. We look at things going on in the brain.

But the ultimate question is still decided by what the person says they are feeling. And how do we know that subject A and subject B are feeling the same thing? Or even anything close?

It's like trying to measure "pretty". If we show an aesthetically pleasing picture to a bunch of people, we might see similar brain function in each of them. But are they really feeling the same thing? Or even seeing the same thing? We have no way of knowing.

in so far as this is a problem, it is a problem for all subjective experience. but it is not a problem, so that's that. we can and do measure all sorts of subjective experiences. they are not magical and we are not fundamentally different creatures from each other.

....again, based on self-diagnosis. We ask people if they are feeling love. They say yes. We look at things going on in the brain.Not really. As far as I know, it's been established that love will have effects similar to a cocaine addiction. You can measure the reaction of a person when seeing someone they feel affection for (which you can also measure by looking at whether the pupils dilate or not) and compare the brain activity. No need for them to verify whether they are in love or not.

But the ultimate question is still decided by what the person says they are feeling. And how do we know that subject A and subject B are feeling the same thing? Or even anything close?

It's like trying to measure "pretty". If we show an aesthetically pleasing picture to a bunch of people, we might see similar brain function in each of them. But are they really feeling the same thing? Or even seeing the same thing? We have no way of knowing.Which brings us to the theory that we all see colors differently, which is a) unprovable and b) irrelevent.

Do you consider psychology to be a scientific discipline?

or medicine, for that matter.

"doctor, i feel a pain right here"
"since i can't feel your pain, i have no idea what it's like. so there's nothing i can do about it. sorry."

....again, based on self-diagnosis. We ask people if they are feeling love. They say yes. We look at things going on in the brain.

But the ultimate question is still decided by what the person says they are feeling. And how do we know that subject A and subject B are feeling the same thing? Or even anything close?

It's like trying to measure "pretty". If we show an aesthetically pleasing picture to a bunch of people, we might see similar brain function in each of them. But are they really feeling the same thing? Or even seeing the same thing? We have no way of knowing.
What we mean with love is, again, caused by certain brain activities. Those can be measured without self-diagnosis.
If you admit that historical sciences are still sciences then your argument falls apart.
Historical science isn't the same type of science as biology or math. Science has different branches, like biology and chemistry fall under the banner emperical science and history falls under the banners social sciences and humanities.

i know this is often trotted out as an example in these discussions, but it seems to me that it is fundamentally silly. we test for love all the fucking time in our day to day lives.

Testing for something doesn't mean that we empirically test for it.

How do you sense love? You don't. You observe actions that you personally associate with love. But you have no way to test whether or not those actions really are associated with or coming from love.

how the hell would relationships even work if we were completely unable to empirically identify love? shit, we even have some sort of rough scale of love. even the existence of people who are just pretending so they can get in our pants highlights our abilities here - the very idea would make no sense at all otherwise.

How the hell would we discuss aesthetics if we couldn't empirically determine whether or not something looks good? The existence of people who intentionally decorate with ugly decor highlights our abilities here....

Emotion, like our taste in decor, is subjective. Our tests for it are based in that subjectivity.

in so far as this is a problem, it is a problem for all subjective experience. but it is not a problem, so that's that. we can and do measure all sorts of subjective experiences. they are not magical and we are not fundamentally different creatures from each other.

We don't empirically measure any subjective experiences. We measure those things that can be objectively determined. For instance, we can measure the wavelength of light. That can be objectively determined. But precisely what that wavelength of light looks like to a different person? We're at a loss.

With something like love, we're starting out with the internal questions. So we're equally at a loss.


Do you consider psychology to be a scientific discipline?

Some of it.

Yes, but your original argument was based on the idea that historical sciences are an exception to the standard scientific requirements of testability, falsifiabitity and verifiability:

If you admit that historical sciences are still sciences then your argument falls apart.

This is simply begging the question unless you can prove that there is an objective standard of truth underpinning moral statements.

Unless you're very unusual indeed you probably learnt to throw and skip well by practicing: i.e. experimenting with different ways of doing it and adopting the most effective ones.

No you don't. You may think they love you, but unless you know something about their past behaviour and actions then this is just speculation, on a par with the weirdos I mentioned earlier who believe that celebrities are in love with them.

Suppose that, at some point after your children started loving you, you were locked in a dark cell and never had any contact with them again, neither did you receive any information on them. Suppose that, at some point, they stopped loving you: how would you know? You wouldn't. You'd only be able to tell if you had some idea of what they were doing and saying.

I have no idea what you're on about. You seem to have greatly misunderstood me and my argument. Let me repeat it in short words:

The scientific method is not the only way to know things.

Not really. As far as I know, it's been established that love will have effects similar to a cocaine addiction. You can measure the reaction of a person when seeing someone they feel affection for (which you can also measure by looking at whether the pupils dilate or not) and compare the brain activity. No need for them to verify whether they are in love or not.

How do you think we began to correlate pupil dilation and the like with affection?

We first had to ask people who they felt affection for and then measure their responses.


What we mean with love is, again, caused by certain brain activities. Those can be measured without self-diagnosis.

Really? So we found the brain activities first and then assigned them the word "love"?

No, we didn't. We asked people if they felt love and then measured their brain activities. On the assumption that they really were feeling love and that they were all actually feeling the same emotion, we then correlated those brain activities with the emotion "love".

The measurement that you're making such a big deal out of was developed through self-diagnosis.

The measurement that you're making such a big deal out of was developed through self-diagnosis.

On multiple testsubjects. If the correlations were based entirely on a single person, they would indeed be silly.
But if a few thousand different testsubjects all produce similar results they get interesting.

Testing for something doesn't mean that we empirically test for it.

i think you are using that word wrong, since in your very next sentence you propose a method of empirical testing.

How the hell would we discuss aesthetics if we couldn't empirically determine whether or not something looks good?

and we can, within a particular culturally-influenced but biologically-based range of 'looking good'.

For instance, we can measure the wavelength of light. That can be objectively determined. But precisely what that wavelength of light looks like to a different person? We're at a loss.

except that we aren't. we can tell, for example, whether someone is colorblind or not, which means that we can tell if they see things like we do in at least that sense. as far as the actual subject experience of 'blue', well, that is a function of our biology as well. unless we have evidence for a divergence, then there is no reason to think it exists and plenty of reason to think it doesn't.

Really? So we found the brain activities first and then assigned them the word "love"?

No, we didn't. We asked people if they felt love and then measured their brain activities. On the assumption that they really were feeling love and that they were all actually feeling the same emotion, we then correlated those brain activities with the emotion "love".

The measurement that you're making such a big deal out of was developed through self-diagnosis.
"Love", in the first place, describes a certain state of the person, there are different kinds of love. It's a very general word, varying from mother and daughter, to married man and mistress (e.a passion, or lust) or simply girl- and boyfriend. Maybe this little wiki may clear things up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%28scientific_views%29
So, what are we talking about here?

How do you think we began to correlate pupil dilation and the like with affection?

We first had to ask people who they felt affection for and then measure their responses.

your proposal is that we have no idea if all of these people using the same word to describe something and showing the same physical effects are actually experiencing the same thing. this requires us to imagine a near infinite variety of private sensations which we all just happen to have the same responses to, but which in reality are completely distinct. parsimony says its the same experience (within a biologically and culturally set range, hence people with 'high pain tolerance', etc).

especially because we can predict on the basis of our own understanding of our sensations how other people will respond to theirs. how is this possible if all sensations are completely incommensurable private sensations? and by what mechanism do these private sensations originate?

On multiple testsubjects. If the correlations were based entirely on a single person, they would indeed be silly.
But if a few thousand different testsubjects all produce similar results they get interesting.

Interesting, but I still wouldn't necessarily trust the results. Correlation does not prove causation. And when we can't even be certain that all of the subjects are truly describing the same thing....


"Love", in the first place, describes a certain state of the person, there are different kinds of love.

Love describes an emotion. It is therefore internal and subjective.

Even the very first sentence in your wiki link makes it clear that we aren't actually measuring love. We are measuring experiences "associated with love."

If enough people say that they feel [X] and then do action [Y], we say that [Y] is associated with and likely caused by [X]. But anything we go on from there is fundamentally based in the initial self-diagnosis.

Interesting, but I still wouldn't necessarily trust the results. Correlation does not prove causation. And when we can't even be certain that all of the subjects are truly describing the same thing....

True. But then we can still turn it around; as in "interest is something that makes your pupils become bigger".

I have no idea what you're on about. You seem to have greatly misunderstood me and my argument. Let me repeat it in short words:

The scientific method is not the only way to know things.

To be honest I don't know why you're having trouble with this: you presented some instances which you claimed were examples of knowledge which wasn't based on scientific method (notably the core principles of science like testability). I responded by pointing out that every single one of your examples is either:

1. an example of knowledge based on empirical data and testing of some kind (i.e. a process analogous to science) like knowledge of historical events

or

2. an example of something which isn't necessarily knowledge at all ('moral knowledge' for example)!

This destroys your argument.

EDIT: it's also worth noting that your original post was claiming that there are examples of knowledge that can't be known by scientific methods, which is a very different claim from your new, weaker one of 'science isn't the only way to know things'. Are we to take it that you're conceding the first point?

i think you are using that word wrong, since in your very next sentence you propose a method of empirical testing.

Not an empirical test for love.

Suppose I assume that anyone who likes a movie will clap after it because that is what I would do. I then go to movie theaters and watch the latest movie over and over again, measuring how many people clap.

What have I actually empirically tested? I have empirically tested whether or not people clap after the movie. My assumption of what people who enjoyed it would do may or may not have been correct, so I have not empirically tested the actual number of people who enjoyed the movie.

If I associate certain actions with love, I can certainly determine whether or not someone else is doing them. But I will only have empirically measured whether or not they have carried out certain actions. Associating those actions with love is an assumption, not a measurement.

your proposal is that we have no idea if all of these people using the same word to describe something and showing the same physical effects are actually experiencing the same thing. this requires us to imagine a near infinite variety of private sensations which we all just happen to have the same responses to, but which in reality are completely distinct. parsimony says its the same experience (within a biologically and culturally set range, hence people with 'high pain tolerance', etc).

especially because we can predict on the basis of our own understanding of our sensations how other people will respond to theirs. how is this possible if all sensations are completely incommensurable private sensations?

I don't know about you, but I find quite often that I can't predict how other people will respond to various sensations based on my own responses. Something that I find disturbing, someone else finds humorous. Something that feels good to me may actually bug the hell out of someone else. Something that tastes good to me disgusts another. Music I like annoys someone else. And so on....

We know that, even within the basic 5 senses, people describe their experiences very differently - to the extent that the senses even overlap for some. To assume that we all feel or react to emotion - something much more internalized - the same way, in my mind, would be silly.

Not an empirical test for love.
What is love? (baby don't hurt me)

To be honest I don't know why you're having trouble with this: you presented some instances which you claimed were examples of knowledge which wasn't based on scientific method (notably the core principles of science like testability). I responded by pointing out that every single one of your examples is either:

1. an example of knowledge based on empirical data and testing of some kind (i.e. a process analogous to science) like knowledge of historical events

or

2. an example of something which isn't necessarily knowledge at all ('moral knowledge' for example)!

This destroys your argument.

EDIT: it's also worth noting that your original post was claiming that there are examples of knowledge that can't be known by scientific methods, which is a very different claim from your new, weaker one of 'science isn't the only way to know things'. Are we to take it that you're conceding the first point?

You have a very wide and unique definition of science, apparently.

Trying over and over again to learn how to ride a bike is not the scientific method. There is no hypothesis. There is no test. No experiment. No prediction. No conclusion. No data. I would even claim that the knowledge of how to ride a bike cannot be learnt using the scientific method.

Here's some more examples of things you can't know by using the scientific method:

You can't know how awesome I think I am.

You can't know when I mastrurbate to mental images of farm animals instead of mental images of humans.

You can't know if I prefer crunchy or smooth peanut butter.

You can't know why I choose to debate on the internet.

What is love? (baby don't hurt me)

Please Great Dawn. Since you have no doubt read the above comments and have no doubt done serious research, I think we can safely say we're no strangers to love - you know the rules and so do I. A full commitment is what Im thinking of, you wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling, gotta make you understand:
never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye - never gonna tell a lie and hurt you :p

Hail the RickRoll !

What is love? (baby don't hurt me)

Yuck. I hate that retard.

Not an empirical test for love.

Suppose I assume that anyone who likes a movie will clap after it because that is what I would do. I then go to movie theaters and watch the latest movie over and over again, measuring how many people clap.

What have I actually empirically tested? I have empirically tested whether or not people clap after the movie. My assumption of what people who enjoyed it would do may or may not have been correct, so I have not empirically tested the actual number of people who enjoyed the movie.

If I associate certain actions with love, I can certainly determine whether or not someone else is doing them. But I will only have empirically measured whether or not they have carried out certain actions. Associating those actions with love is an assumption, not a measurement.



I don't know about you, but I find quite often that I can't predict how other people will respond to various sensations based on my own responses. Something that I find disturbing, someone else finds humorous. Something that feels good to me may actually bug the hell out of someone else. Something that tastes good to me disgusts another. Music I like annoys someone else. And so on....

We know that, even within the basic 5 senses, people describe their experiences very differently - to the extent that the senses even overlap for some. To assume that we all feel or react to emotion - something much more internalized - the same way, in my mind, would be silly.

Your example makes no sense. You're taking a pattern of behavior, not a response to stimulus, and trying to compare to actively testing stimulants and the response therein. We're not talking about whether we all react to certain stimulus in a certain way. I don't like what you like... BUT we both LIKE things.

Your argument here is that if Love was the same for all of us we would all Love the same things. But you LOVE something and I LOVE something and if you take YOUR response to what you love and MY response to what I love then see if we both of the same PHYSIOLOGICAL responses to what we love then we can safely assume that we're both feeling LOVE.

I'll give you an example of how one would do this: First, take Subject A, then you take stimulus 1, 2, and 3. Now we know the Subject enjoys Stimulus 1, but not Stimulus 3. We measure their physiological response to Stimulus 1 and Stimulus 3 and based on the physiological response we can deduce how they feel about Stimulus 2. Now if we add a Subject B and C to the mix and we know subject B has the reverse of A, and C enjoys Stimulus 2 but not 3 and 1 then, we know that if all three have the same physiological responses to the Stimulus they enjoy and don't enjoy then we can pretty much certify what the sensation of Joy is. Now if one were then to introduce Subject D into the mix but we don't know what Stimulus Subject D enjoys or does not enjoy. We can, with reasonable certainity, deduce what Stimulus Subject D enjoys based on the physiological response to the stimulus and ny what we've already analyzed based on the physiological response to joy.

Furthermore, emotions are not unknowable. Look at Anger and Fear, both are emothions we feel, both have physiological responses that we have analyzed and evaluated. Regardless of whether you interpret the sensations of Love in the same way I do is irrevelant

Ladies, Gentlemen, fish, reptilian, etc. etc. etc. . . . . I humbly say that this is all an extremely interesting debate/topic/forum, HOWEVER, the one thing that I believe you're all forgetting is . . . . What color is blue to a blind man?

How can Salim (as a Muslim), Nate (as a Christian), Theodore(as a Scientologist), and Abby (as an Athiest) get along as a collective? This is the same rhetoric that has been screamed to the heavens since man was first made into goo by god. *L*

Empirical analysis, datum, belief, historical documentation . . . all these things are pertinent, but OVERALL, how important ARE they in correlation to where we actually came from? If you pray to god to give you an answer (depending on your belief structure, that is) will he impart you with some vastly new and awe-inspiring justification that explains US? We ARE. We just are. We came into being several hundred thousand(million;hundred million) years ago through SOME form of creation (whether you believe in the big bang, Darwin, the guy on the street corner,
the Bible, the Koran, or mom and dad) and as was previously stated on multiple accounts, we WILL evolve into what nature NEEDS us to be. Either that, or we die.

Natural Selection has been upset (fortunately) by the evolution of medicine. Did you know that they're delivering healthy (albeit, they need a hand) babies as early as 23 weeks now? As our knowledge expands and gets harnessed into the collective pool that we ALL (hopefully) have the ability to draw upon, Science is rapidly overtaking the Spiritual. My PERSONAL hope is that one day science will PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt the presence of God, but I'm an idealist.

Guys, all said and done, we're here. We ARE. NOBODY is going to find the scientific proof that will undoubtedly show me where the first men came from before 4 million years ago (30-odd miles away from Hadar, Ethiopia) for a LONG LONG time, and perhaps . . . just perhaps . . . if you're a Christian, the second coming will happen before that . . .

Again. Rhetoric. :headbang:

Not an empirical test for love.

Suppose I assume that anyone who likes a movie will clap after it because that is what I would do. I then go to movie theaters and watch the latest movie over and over again, measuring how many people clap.

What have I actually empirically tested? I have empirically tested whether or not people clap after the movie. My assumption of what people who enjoyed it would do may or may not have been correct, so I have not empirically tested the actual number of people who enjoyed the movie.

If I associate certain actions with love, I can certainly determine whether or not someone else is doing them. But I will only have empirically measured whether or not they have carried out certain actions. Associating those actions with love is an assumption, not a measurement.

this works with everything. gravity, for example. you can't test for gravity, just for actions we associate with gravity. we could, of course, turn out to be wrong about that association.

anyways, love is (partially) defined by those actions. names for sensations have a place in our languages and they are associated with certain actions. they derive their meanings by the role they play.

I don't know about you, but I find quite often that I can't predict how other people will respond to various sensations based on my own responses.

no, you don't. if you live in society at all successfully then you almost always correctly understand others responses. if you didn't, you would be unable to interact well enough to get by. in fact, people who don't have this capability are extremely noticeable to us, even after extremely brief interactions.

what you actually have is a very good sense of where your responses to sensations and others do not converge and where they do.

Your example makes no sense. You're taking a pattern of behavior, not a response to stimulus, and trying to compare to actively testing stimulants and the response therein. We're not talking about whether we all react to certain stimulus in a certain way. I don't like what you like... BUT we both LIKE things.

But how do I know what you like and how do you know what I like?

It's based on......drum roll....self-diagnosis! I tell you what I like. You tell me what you like. We may or may not act the same way in response to liking something.

Your argument here is that if Love was the same for all of us we would all Love the same things. But you LOVE something and I LOVE something and if you take YOUR response to what you love and MY response to what I love then see if we both of the same PHYSIOLOGICAL responses to what we love then we can safely assume that we're both feeling LOVE.

You're still starting with self-diagnosis of love. You say you love something. I say I love something. Only then do we bother testing physiological response.

My argument isn't that we would all love the same things. It's that we cannot empirically even know that love means the same thing to each of us. And any measurements we make of physiological responses to love start with a self-diagnosis of that emotion. We begin with a subjective assessment and then try and place objective measurement upon it.

I'll give you an example of how one would do this: First, take Subject A, then you take stimulus 1, 2, and 3. Now we know the Subject enjoys Stimulus 1, but not Stimulus 3.

And how do we know this? We know it because Subject A says so. We can't measure it at the outset, because the whole point of your exercise is to try and determine some way to do that.

As you can see, even your own example relies upon self-diagnosis at its outset.


this works with everything. gravity, for example. you can't test for gravity, just for actions we associate with gravity. we could, of course, turn out to be wrong about that association.

Gravity is not a conscious being. It doesn't have "actions". With gravity, we observed the phenomenon and then posited the force. In this way, it is similar to just about any empirical measurement. When we measure friction, it's because we observe the phenomenon of something slowing down, posit a reason for it, and test. We don't first posit friction (or gravity) and then look for results of the phenomenon.

There's nothing subjective in that process. In fact, we've taken great pains to remove the subjective from it. We can measure the force on inanimate or animate objects. We don't have to rely on someone's subjective analysis of their own feelings. Any two people trying to measure gravity under the same conditions will get the same results. And, most of all, we don't have to make any extraneous untestable assumptions.

With emotions, it's backwards. First, we identify emotion. We must then assume that everyone feels that emotion similarly - an untestable assumption as we cannot empirically test "feelings". We have to rely on self-diagnosis. Then we try and find actions to push into the mold of "love". Any two people trying to measure "love" won't even be able to establish the same conditions, much less expect to get the same results as another.

In order to have a comparison to gravity, we would first have to assume that something called gravity existed and worked the same way on every object. Then we'd go about looking for signs of it. When we saw things all falling to the Earth, we'd go, "Look! This must be what it means to have gravity!"

anyways, love is (partially) defined by those actions. names for sensations have a place in our languages and they are associated with certain actions. they derive their meanings by the role they play.

I think that emotions exist outside of our languages. We feel something whether we have a word for it or not. We assume that others feel similar emotions and thus try to place names on them and find a consensus on shared experience. But we don't ever actually share emotional experiences. At best, we get vague descriptions of what another another person may experience as emotion.

no, you don't. if you live in society at all successfully then you almost always correctly understand others responses. if you didn't, you would be unable to interact well enough to get by. in fact, people who don't have this capability are extremely noticeable to us, even after extremely brief interactions.

You didn't say anything about understanding others' responses. You said I could predict their responses. I can't. If I see a certain reaction to something (ie. someone stands up and starts yelling) I can guess at what they are feeling (ie. that they are angry). I do that because yelling a lot often means that I am angry. Of course, I might have mischaracterized their response (especially if I don't share a language with them). I couldn't necessarily have predicted that they would be angry (if they are). And I definitely can't necessarily predict what response they want me to have to their emotions.

If love were as easy to measure as you're trying to suggest, we wouldn't have entire volumes of literature dedicated to lovers' inability to do just that - volumes that don't even begin to cover all of the many things that can go wrong - all of the little misunderstandings that can occur.

It seems to be human instinct to try and categorize everything - to try and fit it into neat little boxes. We find it hard to ever do that in biology. You throw in consciousness, emotion, and all the subjective issues that come along with them, and it becomes pretty much downright impossible.


Btw, if this seems rambly, it's late and I'm tired. I apologize.

But how do I know what you like and how do you know what I like?

It's based on......drum roll....self-diagnosis! I tell you what I like. You tell me what you like. We may or may not act the same way in response to liking something.



You're still starting with self-diagnosis of love. You say you love something. I say I love something. Only then do we bother testing physiological response.

My argument isn't that we would all love the same things. It's that we cannot empirically even know that love means the same thing to each of us. And any measurements we make of physiological responses to love start with a self-diagnosis of that emotion. We begin with a subjective assessment and then try and place objective measurement upon it.



And how do we know this? We know it because Subject A says so. We can't measure it at the outset, because the whole point of your exercise is to try and determine some way to do that.

As you can see, even your own example relies upon self-diagnosis at its outset.

No. My example is based on a hypothesis developed from analyization of information provided. Yes. The hypothesis is based on what they say they like and dislike. But if we take and analyze their response to the stimulus that they claim to like, then to the stimulus they claim to dislike. If they have the same response to the things they dislike then that would imply they at least dislike things in a predictable fashion. Rinse and repeat for the like side of the argument. Now, we have at least established an identifiable qualifier for what the subject likes and dislikes.

To explain in easier terms. If the subject dislikes doughnuts, eggs, and milk and if, when the subject is introduced to those stimulants the subject lets out a bark. Then it's safe to assume that the subject barks when he dislikes something. Now if the subject likes candy, popcorn and cheese and if, when the subject is introduce to those stimulants, he purrs. Then we can then assume that when he likes something purrs. If we then introduce stimulants that we have not identified as him disliking or liking, then we can measure whether he likes or dislikes it by whether he barks or purrs.

Now, if say, the subject barks 8 out of 10 times but purrs 2 out of the 10. And if he purrs 7 out of 10 times but laughs 3 out of 10 times we therein know that if he laughs that we can assume that if he laughs to a stimulus he likes it. But if he purrs we can guess that he likes it but there is a chance that he dislikes it. This is still a quantifiable identifier.

If the subject has a distinct and different response to each stimulant then we can assume that the subject does not dislike everything in the same way or like everything in the same way. (This is highly improbable but not impossible.)

Now if we add too the study. If you take three subjects and introduced them to stimulants based on what they claim to like and all three subjects bark when they are introduced to stimulants that they dislike, and purr when they like something. Then if we take a new subject, we can reasonably deduce if he likes or dislikes something based on whether he barks or purrs.

If each subject responds in a different way then that implies that there is a variant in how they experience what they like or dislike.

Now you have to realize then that these experiments are examples and would actually require way more then 3 or 4 subjects to be considered valid. But the point you're trying to make is that "love" can't be tested. But it can be. Hypothesis, experimentation, assesment, conclussion. Not the exact Scientic process but more or less.

So far, from your arguments that I've read, it seems that you're arguing that there's no way to identify love because we can't know if what I mean by love is what you mean by love. But that has little bearing. Just because my color Red is what you see as blue. If we both look at Red and see Red, regardless if what I see is purple and you see is blue, it's still Red.

Regardless of what I think love is and what you think love is if we both get dilated pupils when we experience what we believe to be love then we can assume that dilated pupils implies a person is in love. If by the same proxy our cheeks redden when we feel what we classify as hate then we can assume that reddend cheeks implies hate.

If by this process we discover that when I experience love I get sweaty palms and you get dilated pupils then we can assume that we don't experience love in the same way or we don't mean the same thing when we refer to love. Either way. Science can be used to emperically test for love in an individual or in a group.

Of course. Magnify the experiments to 100 people. If 70 of the people have the same response to what they identify as love then we can reasonably assume that if we take another person and they have the same response to a stimulant that they are feeling "love." Of course there's the 30 percent of the subjects who don't feel love in this way. Say 17 percent feel it in a variant to the original and the other 13 have a different response as well. We can still assume that a person who has this response to a stimulant is feeling some variant of "love."

Love is a quantifiable and identifiable phenomnon if one performs the proper experiments.

No. My example is based on a hypothesis developed from analyization of information provided. Yes. The hypothesis is based on what they say they like and dislike. But if we take and analyze their response to the stimulus that they claim to like, then to the stimulus they claim to dislike. If they have the same response to the things they dislike then that would imply they at least dislike things in a predictable fashion. Rinse and repeat for the like side of the argument. Now, we have at least established an identifiable qualifier for what the subject likes and dislikes.

....based in self-diagnosis. They said they liked [x] and disliked [y]. We didn't measure that. We have to assume it to be true based on their self-diagnosis.

No matter what you do, when you start talking about likes, dislikes, emotion, etc., you cannot get away from reliance upon subjective self-diagnosis.

So far, from your arguments that I've read, it seems that you're arguing that there's no way to identify love because we can't know if what I mean by love is what you mean by love. But that has little bearing.

Of course it has bearing. If we're both trying to test for [X], but I think [X] means one thing and you think it means another, we aren't testing for the same thing!

Love is a quantifiable and identifiable phenomnon if one performs the proper experiments.

....only after making untestable assumptions. And, because of those assumptions, we're never really testing "love". We're testing certain phenomena that we have, through non-empirical means, decided are correlated to love.

We may use empirical methods once we get past the initial subjective first step. But everything we do after that step relies upon the subjective - the non-empirical.

No matter what you do, when you start talking about likes, dislikes, emotion, etc., you cannot get away from reliance upon subjective self-diagnosis.

and this has no impact at all on whether it is empirically testable, on pain of ruling out the possibility of medicine

You have a very wide and unique definition of science, apparently.

I'm using it in a loose sense of empirical data collection, as this is what is relevant to your point.

Trying over and over again to learn how to ride a bike is not the scientific method. There is no hypothesis. There is no test. No experiment. No prediction. No conclusion. No data. I would even claim that the knowledge of how to ride a bike cannot be learnt using the scientific method.

You may not make formal predictions, but you'll sure as hell discard possible ways of riding if they result in you falling off. As I say, I'm talking about science in the sense of empirical data, as this is what is relevant to the argument you're trying to make.


Here's some more examples of things you can't know by using the scientific method:

You can't know how awesome I think I am.

You can't know when I mastrurbate to mental images of farm animals instead of mental images of humans.

You can't know if I prefer crunchy or smooth peanut butter.

You can't know why I choose to debate on the internet.

I take it by this that you're conceding your earlier examples?

....only after making untestable assumptions. And, because of those assumptions, we're never really testing "love". We're testing certain phenomena that we have, through non-empirical means, decided are correlated to love.

We may use empirical methods once we get past the initial subjective first step. But everything we do after that step relies upon the subjective - the non-empirical.

Actually. We are testing love. If you bothered to read the experiments you would see that if 100 people all say we LOVE this and when they are introduce to this they all have the same physiological response then we therin know that they are all feeling their LOVE in the same way. This relies on neither self-diagnoses. It relies on a hypothesis. The hypothesis being that they LOVE this thing.

If everyone responds to love in an identical fashion, that gives love a definition and identifiable indicators to tell if a person is in love or feeling love. Your argument fails. Love is not a force that magically existed forever and was forever love. Love is an experience, a phenomno that we gave name to, and therefore can be tested by analyzing the body's physiological response to this phenomnon.

All science starts with a hypothesis. A theory if you will, I know it means something different in science but forgive me, that we take and perform experiments to prove or disprove.

You can't say that love can't be identified because we start with a guees. Almost everythin science proves starts with such a guess.

The tests would either prove that people experience the same thing when they go through 'LOVE' or that they don't experience the same thing.

Trying over and over again to learn how to ride a bike is not the scientific method. There is no hypothesis. There is no test. No experiment. No prediction. No conclusion. No data. I would even claim that the knowledge of how to ride a bike cannot be learnt using the scientific method.

Here's some more examples of things you can't know by using the scientific method:

You can't know how awesome I think I am.

You can't know when I mastrurbate to mental images of farm animals instead of mental images of humans.

You can't know if I prefer crunchy or smooth peanut butter.

You can't know why I choose to debate on the internet.

Actually. Riding a bike is a subconcious scientific method. We start with the hypothesis that riding a bike consists of getting on a bike and peddaling. We test this by doing it. If we fall over we then experiment with other tests to discover the right way to ride a bike. When we are able to ride the bike, we have a conclusion.

And all the examples you gave can be analyzed and known through the scientific method.

and this has no impact at all on whether it is empirically testable, on pain of ruling out the possibility of medicine

There are areas in medicine where our measurements aren't empirical. In pain studies, for instance, we largely have to rely on subjective tests like self-diagnosis. We recognize that the data from these tests is much less reliable than that received from actual measurements. We apply very different statistics - when we can apply statistics at all. But they're the best we have in those areas, so we go with them.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that anything we cannot empirically test cannot be tested at all.

Actually. We are testing love. If you bothered to read the experiments you would see that if 100 people all say we LOVE this and when they are introduce to this they all have the same physiological response then we therin know that they are all feeling their LOVE in the same way.

No, we don't. We know that the physical manifestations of what they call love are the same.

We have not done anything to measure what they are feeling. We have done nothing to measure love. We relied upon their self-diagnosis of love and then measured physical responses. The actual emotional component - the actual feeling - is not measured.

This relies on neither self-diagnoses.

From your own quote:

100 people all say we LOVE this

You rely on people saying they love something. That is self-diagnosis.


The tests would either prove that people experience the same thing when they go through 'LOVE' or that they don't experience the same thing.

....except they don't. You aren't measuring what they are thinking. You aren't measuring how they feel towards another person. You are measuring pupil dilation, etc. in response to something that they all call "love", but that may or may not be the same phenomenon as that the next person is experiencing.

There are areas in medicine where our measurements aren't empirical. In pain studies, for instance, we largely have to rely on subjective tests like self-diagnosis. We recognize that the data from these tests is much less reliable than that received from actual measurements. We apply very different statistics - when we can apply statistics at all. But they're the best we have in those areas, so we go with them.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that anything we cannot empirically test cannot be tested at all.

subjective sensations are empirical, as is the reporting of them. they are observed/experienced, not derived from first principles. i mean, come on, it's right there in the word 'sensation' that it has to do with the senses.

every empirical subject requires its own sort of testing and measurement because they are about different things. there is nothing surprising there at all.

Dempublicants - you're getting dangerously close to a phenomenon I've noted but I'm not sure there's a word for it.

As a debate continues, one person will increasingly cling to an unprovable statement to avoid conceding.

If a certain amount of endorphins are released consistently with people saying they love apples on being presented with apples, we can certainly say something, we can name this reaction 'love'. If that same release occurs when they say they love chocolate or cats or anything else they profess to love, we can draw consistencies.

To say that we cannot accurately assess exactly what they're feeling is fairly irrelevant, the same bio-chemical reactions are occurring.

If we call that love, and it's consistently applied where people say it's love, then it's love.

I'm not saying I think it's been proven or that 'love' is a singularly defined emotion but there's points to concede here.

I'm using it in a loose sense of empirical data collection, as this is what is relevant to your point.

Then you're using it wrong. I am talking quite specifically of scientifc methodologies like hypothetico-deductivism and stuff like that.

You may not make formal predictions, but you'll sure as hell discard possible ways of riding if they result in you falling off. As I say, I'm talking about science in the sense of empirical data, as this is what is relevant to the argument you're trying to make.

Trial and error is not the scientific method. By the way, I am not discussing only empirical data, so your understanding of what is 'relevant to the argument I am making' appears to be wrong.

I take it by this that you're conceding your earlier examples?

No, I simply refuse to repeat myself simply because you can not understand my argument.

Actually. Riding a bike is a subconcious scientific method.

There is no such thing as a "subconscious scientific method".

We start with the hypothesis that riding a bike consists of getting on a bike and peddaling. We test this by doing it. If we fall over we then experiment with other tests to discover the right way to ride a bike. When we are able to ride the bike, we have a conclusion.

This is an incorrect example of the application of the scientific method. Nor does it address my argument.

And all the examples you gave can be analyzed and known through the scientific method.

Prove it.

subjective sensations are empirical, as is the reporting of them. they are observed/experienced, not derived from first principles.

The sensations are not observed or experienced by the person doing the testing, though.

The are observed and experienced by an individual who may or may not be able (or willing) to accurately portray them to the person collecting the data.


If a certain amount of endorphins are released consistently with people saying they love apples on being presented with apples, we can certainly say something, we can name this reaction 'love'. If that same release occurs when they say they love chocolate or cats or anything else they profess to love, we can draw consistencies.

Of course we can. But we will still not have empirically measured the emotion itself.

To say that we cannot accurately assess exactly what they're feeling is fairly irrelevant, the same bio-chemical reactions are occurring.

It isn't irrelevant. It's the whole point!

To measure an emotion, we would have to be able to assess what they are feeling. That's what emotion is.

If we call that love, and it's consistently applied where people say it's love, then it's love.

Ah, now we're making a semantics argument. If, instead of the word love referring to what people are feeling, we use it to refer to certain physical reactions, then the word is defined that way.

But that's really a bit of circular logic. "If we define this phenomenon only by things we can measure, then we can measure it."

There is no such thing as a "subconscious scientific method".



This is an incorrect example of the application of the scientific method. Nor does it address my argument.



Prove it.

The Scientific Method. According to my school was simple:
Question, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion. In this manner riding a bike can be put through that very same method

Question: How does one ride a bike
Hypothesis: Sit on bike and pedal.
Experiment: Test hypothesis
Conclusion: Riding a bike requires more then sitting and pedalling.

Now Google and Wikipedia bring up a more detailed variant of the Scientific Method.

Ask a question: How does one ride a bike?
Gather Information: Ask people how they ride a bike, watch people riding a bike
Hypothesis: People ride bikes by getting on a bike and peddaling
Experiment: Test hypothesis by performing this action
Analyze results: Subject fell off bike.
Draw Conclusion/Form new hypothesis: There is more to riding a bike then sitting and peddaling.
Repeats step 4 and 5(As well as 6 if necessary)
Form Final Conclusion/Report Results

As you can see both methods work. Both methods are applied when a child first learns to ride a bike. Even though they're not conciously aware that they are doing it. Unless you're using some variant of the scientific method I don't know of. In which case, I'm sure it still applies. So what variant are you using?

Ah, now we're making a semantics argument. If, instead of the word love referring to what people are feeling, we use it to refer to certain physical reactions, then the word is defined that way.

But that's really a bit of circular logic. "If we define this phenomenon only by things we can measure, then we can measure it."

I believe you misunderstand one key fact. Love is defined by PEOPLE. The very concept of love was created by people. There is no greater unknown to it. The word is used to describe a particular phenomnon. We know what that phenomnon is. We can test it.

Your entire argument is about psychological interpretation of an experience which has no bearing on the experience itself. If our bodies react to the experience in the same way then we know that our bodies are sharing the same experience. Regardless of whether you're mind interprets it differently then my own.

Your entire argument is based on an assumption. You cannot say we cannot test love because you have no proof. It's your oppinion that we can't test love. At this stage, we don't have the data or information needed to test love, but this does not mean we can't. However, we CAN test FOR love. And once we do that we can TEST love itself. Or alternatively we'll prove you right and prove we can't test love.... but until you do the research and experimentation then your argument is invalidated

Oh my, how I've missed this place!


Of course I mean, I've missed the fact it's never been in my life, not that I'm a mysterious former member risen from the dead....

I believe you misunderstand one key fact. Love is defined by PEOPLE. The very concept of love was created by people.

Indeed. And like many concepts, it is subjective. While we share a language, what I mean by love will not necessarily be what you mean by love. This is because the phenomenon we are describing is psychological. The word "love" was developed to describe a feeling - a psychological phenomenon.

We didn't find a physical phenomenon here and try to explain it. Someone didn't start out by measuring pupil dilation and the like and then go, "This must be an emotion that we will call 'love'." Instead, we found a psychological phenomenon that we assume others feel similarly and started looking for physical phenomenon to go with it.

Your entire argument is about psychological interpretation of an experience which has no bearing on the experience itself. If our bodies react to the experience in the same way then we know that our bodies are sharing the same experience. Regardless of whether you're mind interprets it differently then my own.

The emotion is the interpretation of it in your mind, however. It is a psychological experience. The "psychological interpretation" that you are claiming has no bearing on the experience itself IS the experience being discussed.

Your entire argument is based on an assumption.

Just about any argument is based on an assumption if you go back far enough.

Mine is simple. You cannot personally share in my emotions. You do not know how I feel, nor do you have a method to measure it. At best, you can ask me and hope that our experiences are similar enough for you to understand my explanation.

Since the very definition of emotion lies in psychological phenomena - in how one feels - you cannot test it. At best, you can correlate physical responses with the emotion I say I'm feeling and hope that it is actually the same feeling someone else has when they use the same words.

The emotion is the interpretation of it in your mind, however. It is a psychological experience. The "psychological interpretation" that you are claiming has no bearing on the experience itself IS the experience being discussed.


Actually. Everything in human experience is interpreted by the mind and thus one can identify the experience of "love" by analyzing the neurological activity that "love" creates. Your argument is based on the belief that love is a purely psychological experience. But as all sensation must be interpreted by the receptors in your mind, which neurology is dedicated to the study of.

Here's what you seem to fail to grasp. The word love only means what we define it as. Not you and me, but we, as in the people of the world. If the majority of test subjects have a shared physiological response to love then we would define that as love. Why? Because it is what the people define as love.

Both anger and fear have been analyzed by neurological studies and physiological studies. Both are emotions. If one can test one emotion, they can test all emotion.

The Scientific Method. According to my school was simple:
Question, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion. In this manner riding a bike can be put through that very same method...As you can see both methods work. Both methods are applied when a child first learns to ride a bike. Even though they're not conciously aware that they are doing it. Unless you're using some variant of the scientific method I don't know of. In which case, I'm sure it still applies. So what variant are you using?

Again, this is an incorrect application of the scientific method. But even if it were correct, you can not learn how to balance yourself on a bike without teaching your muscles how to instinctively balance your body and the bicycle. The scientific method will not teach you this.

Actually. Everything in human experience is interpreted by the mind and thus one can identify the experience of "love" by analyzing the neurological activity that "love" creates. Your argument is based on the belief that love is a purely psychological experience. But as all sensation must be interpreted by the receptors in your mind, which neurology is dedicated to the study of.

Here's what you seem to fail to grasp. The word love only means what we define it as. Not you and me, but we, as in the people of the world. If the majority of test subjects have a shared physiological response to love then we would define that as love. Why? Because it is what the people define as love.

Both anger and fear have been analyzed by neurological studies and physiological studies. Both are emotions. If one can test one emotion, they can test all emotion.

Hehehe. Something tells me that Dempublicents grasps that just fine. I wonder if you understand that a purely neurological explanation of love is not how love is defined by the vast majority of the people of the world.

Even if it was how the people of the world defined it, we really have no way of knowing if the neurological activity that correlates strongly to a particular emotional experience is equivalent to the emotional experience. It could well be that the neurological activity is the result of the emotional experience. Sure, you can assume a physicalist view, and take it for granted that all qualitative experiences equate to physical phenomena, but even that wild leap doesn't get you to knowing that a particular kind of neurological activity is the same as love. It just makes you a physicalist on the issue, in much the same way that assuming God exists and equates to the physical universe makes you a pantheist, but doesn't necessarily mean you know it.

Hehehe. Something tells me that Dempublicents grasps that just fine. I wonder if you understand that a purely neurological explanation of love is not how love is defined by the vast majority of the people of the world.

Even if it was how the people of the world defined it, we really have no way of knowing if the neurological activity that correlates strongly to a particular emotional experience is equivalent to the emotional experience. It could well be that the neurological activity is the result of the emotional experience. Sure, you can assume a physicalist view, and take it for granted that all qualitative experiences equate to physical phenomena, but even that wild leap doesn't get you to knowing that a particular kind of neurological activity is the same as love. It just makes you a physicalist on the issue, in much the same way that assuming God exists and equates to the physical universe makes you a pantheist, but doesn't necessarily mean you know it.
It's not that hard really. First there is input via our senses, like a kiss or sweet words, that input is taken too the brain where the brain responds with certain activities wich also trigger certain exterior reactions. That's the way we work, input > brain > output. Thinking "I'm in love!" is an example of the output. But it's indeed a psychological connection. People have a certain definition of the word "love" in certain situations (since there are different types of love). If the neurological activities correlate with that definition, we say we're in love. The feeling of being in love has 2 major components, the neurological/chemical part (blushing, the "butterflies" in your stomach, etc) and the psychological part (with what do we correlate those feelings). That's why research to love doesn't concern just 1 field of science.

It's not that hard really. First there is input via our senses, like a kiss or sweet words, that input is taken too the brain where the brain responds with certain activities wich also trigger certain exterior reactions. That's the way we work, input > brain > output. Thinking "I'm in love!" is an example of the output. But it's indeed a psychological connection. People have a certain definition of the word "love" in certain situations (since there are different types of love). If the neurological activities correlate with that definition, we say we're in love. The feeling of being in love has 2 major components, the neurological/chemical part (blushing, the "butterflies" in your stomach, etc) and the psychological part (with what do we correlate those feelings). That's why research to love doesn't concern just 1 field of science.

Of course it's not hard. We can come up with all sorts of explanations that are easy to understand and/or fit into people's conceptual matrices. Many of them are even partially accurate, like yours. But those explanations are generally incomplete because we so often base them in a worldview that is incomplete. Maybe we believe the explanation that says, "Love is the amazing feeling I have when I'm with my partner." Maybe we believe that explanation that says, "Love is chemical processes in the brain that occur in response to external stimuli." Neither explanation is complete. The first leaves out any neurological/behavioral reality, and the second fails to acknowledge any qualitative/experiential reality.

Of course it's not hard. We can come up with all sorts of explanations that are easy to understand and/or fit into people's conceptual matrices. Many of them are even partially accurate, like yours. But those explanations are generally incomplete because we so often base them in a worldview that is incomplete. Maybe we believe the explanation that says, "Love is the amazing feeling I have when I'm with my partner." Maybe we believe that explanation that says, "Love is chemical processes in the brain that occur in response to external stimuli." Neither explanation is complete. The first leaves out any neurological/behavioral reality, and the second fails to acknowledge any qualitative/experiential reality.
Ofcourse they're incomplete, or else there wouldn't be much left to research ;) But it has nothing to do wich explanation we "beleive", since both are true. It's a fact that a feeling we call love is caused by chemical processes, who says that feeling can't feel great? You still need input to get to those processes, those come from your partner/future partner. The first is just an explanation how love comes around, it doesn't say anything about what's it's like for an individual.

Ofcourse they're incomplete, or else there wouldn't be much left to research ;) But it has nothing to do wich explanation we "beleive", since both are true. It's a fact that a feeling we call love is caused by chemical processes, who says that feeling can't feel great? You still need input to get to those processes, those come from your partner/future partner. The first is just an explanation how love comes around, it doesn't say anything about what's it's like for an individual.

I'd dispute that to some extent, people who are obsessed might say they're in love but they're simply not, they're obsessed.

This is all like saying when I see red, you see blue - no way to prove that's not true ultimately but we can still know that the spectrum generally agreed to be red is consistent.

The problem is that the word 'love' does not equate to a specific reaction because the word 'love' can be applied in different ways.

I love my family
I love my girlfriend

There's different emotions overlaid on each, it's simply more complex but it's actually a language issue, not an emotional one.

Neither side of this debate is completely wrong/right.

Ofcourse they're incomplete, or else there wouldn't be much left to research ;) But it has nothing to do wich explanation we "beleive", since both are true. It's a fact that a feeling we call love is caused by chemical processes, who says that feeling can't feel great? You still need input to get to those processes, those come from your partner/future partner. The first is just an explanation how love comes around, it doesn't say anything about what's it's like for an individual.

Even with more research, the explanation will still be incomplete, at least in scientific circles.

How have you determined that chemical processes are causing the feeling we describe as love rather than the feeling causing the chemical processes to activate? If you have successfully answered Hume's devastating critique of causality, I'd sure like to know about it.

Even with more research, the explanation will still be incomplete, at least in scientific circles.

How have you determined that chemical processes are causing the feeling we describe as love rather than the feeling causing the chemical processes to activate? If you have successfully answered Hume's devastating critique of causality, I'd sure like to know about it.
Science is never complete indeed, because we never know what we might encounter in the future.

But it's easy how to determine that, it's simply the input > brain > output. The things you feel are output (ánd input for other things at the same time) from, in this case for example, certain eye contact or someone saying "I love you" against you. It's all cause and effect. It starts somewhere: you fall in love, e.a some kind of input triggered a respons wich you describe as "I'm in love with that person."

Actually. Everything in human experience is interpreted by the mind and thus one can identify the experience of "love" by analyzing the neurological activity that "love" creates. Your argument is based on the belief that love is a purely psychological experience. But as all sensation must be interpreted by the receptors in your mind, which neurology is dedicated to the study of.

Yes, they must be interpreted. I'm not pretending that your brain is not involved.

Here's the problem. Love - the actual emotion - is a psychological experience. That's what emotion is.

Here's what you seem to fail to grasp. The word love only means what we define it as. Not you and me, but we, as in the people of the world. If the majority of test subjects have a shared physiological response to love then we would define that as love. Why? Because it is what the people define as love.

No, the people define their feelings as love. We then come behind them and try to find a shared physiological response without knowing if their feelings are the same.

The word "love", like most terms describing subjective experience, can mean something very different to two different people.


This is all like saying when I see red, you see blue - no way to prove that's not true ultimately but we can still know that the spectrum generally agreed to be red is consistent.

The problem is that the word 'love' does not equate to a specific reaction because the word 'love' can be applied in different ways.

I love my family
I love my girlfriend

And because we cannot actually share an experience, like both looking at the same light source, we can't even say that the "spectrum" called love is at all consistent. We have no way of knowing whether or not the way you feel about your family is the way I feel about my family, even though we might both use the word "love" to describe it and might both distinguish it from the love that we feel for romantic partners.


But it's easy how to determine that, it's simply the input > brain > output. The things you feel are output (ánd input for other things at the same time) from, in this case for example, certain eye contact or someone saying "I love you" against you. It's all cause and effect. It starts somewhere: you fall in love, e.a some kind of input triggered a respons wich you describe as "I'm in love with that person."

And that's just it. You describe whatever output you happen to be getting as "love". I describe whatever output I happen to be getting as "love." But that output is accessible only to the person experiencing it. Therefore, it's a big black box. We have no way to dig deeper because we can't measure it. I cannot measure or experience your feelings of love and vice versa.

And that's just it. You describe whatever output you happen to be getting as "love". I describe whatever output I happen to be getting as "love." But that output is accessible only to the person experiencing it. Therefore, it's a big black box. We have no way to dig deeper because we can't measure it. I cannot measure or experience your feelings of love and vice versa.
That's the psychological and antropological part, it's not a huge black box, sure it's not emperical science but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. Also, the output is not accesable to just that person. We can measure certain hormonal reactions for example. The reactions from our body is the same for you and me, the way we interpret and react upon the reaction is different. I can measure certain things, research your cultural and personal history, then make a hypothesis and test it.

That's the psychological and antropological part, it's not a huge black box, sure it's not emperical science but that doesn't mean we don't know anything.

.....exactly my point. It isn't empirically measurable.

Also, the output is not accesable to just that person. We can measure certain hormonal reactions for example.

The output we're discussing is the emotion itself - the psychological - the feeling. That is only accessible to the person experiencing it.

The reactions from our body is the same for you and me, the way we interpret and react upon the reaction is different.

(a) Our bodily reactions won't necessarily be the same, even if we are feeling the exact same things.

(b) Emotion is, at its base, an "interpretation". It's not a conscious one, but whatever is going on in our brains to produce emotion produces an actual conscious and psychological feeling. That feeling is not something anyone else can measure.

Because that feeling may be very different, it's a bit hard to say that the physical manifestations of it denote similarity. Different stimuli can sometimes produce the same biological reaction.

I can measure certain things, research your cultural and personal history, then make a hypothesis and test it.

But you can never test my actual emotion - not empirically anyways. At best, you can ask me how I feel and hope that the barriers of language and differing personal experience don't get in the way.

The output we're discussing is the emotion itself - the psychological - the feeling. That is only accessible to the person experiencing it.
Aa, is that the defintion neurological scientists use ;) I thought that with emotion, they ment the physical reaction and not the personal interpretation from the emotion.


(a) Our bodily reactions won't necessarily be the same, even if we are feeling the exact same things.

(b) Emotion is, at its base, an "interpretation". It's not a conscious one, but whatever is going on in our brains to produce emotion produces an actual conscious and psychological feeling. That feeling is not something anyone else can measure.
Well ofcourse, not exactly the same. What I ment is that the same hormones are released and stuff like that. Ofcourse, not the exact dose ;)
Anyway, again, when I think of the word emotion, I think of the things wich happen in my body and not how I use and interpret the emotion.
Maybe they can be 2 different things, physical emotion e.a the things that happen in my body and physological emotion e.a how my mind interpret the physical emotion.

Because that feeling may be very different, it's a bit hard to say that the physical manifestations of it denote similarity. Different stimuli can sometimes produce the same biological reaction.



But you can never test my actual emotion - not empirically anyways. At best, you can ask me how I feel and hope that the barriers of language and differing personal experience don't get in the way.
Then we could say, that we can emperically measure physical emotion, but we can't emperically measure physological emotion/

Not that I'm a creationist or a intelligent design proponent, but I have some issues with the Theory of Evolution. It has some validity but there's some things I can't wrap my head around:

1. Why do species evolve? It's not like animal have active control over what they want their offspring to develop, and I don't think promotion of certain genes allowed the dinosaurs to develop wings and learn to fly with them.

2. Why do these evolving offspring evolve in the nearly exact same direction? if we attribute it to promotion of certain genes, there's so many deviations different organisms possess in their individual genetic make-up, so it doesn't quite make sense.

I'm not an expert, but this what my simple mind is confused by, generally.

Aa, is that the defintion neurological scientists use ;) I thought that with emotion, they ment the physical reaction and not the personal interpretation from the emotion.

Neurological scientists tend to talk about physical reactions associated with an emotion, from what I've seen.

But I was speaking more along the lines of what the word means in general. When most people talk about "love", they are talking about their psychological experiences. They are talking about what they feel, not how they act.

Maybe they can be 2 different things, physical emotion e.a the things that happen in my body and physological emotion e.a how my mind interpret the physical emotion.

Or, maybe it's the other way around. Your physical reactions are how your body reacts to the psychological experience.

Then we could say, that we can emperically measure physical emotion, but we can't emperically measure physological emotion/

You can empirically measure the physical manifestations of emotion, yes. That hasn't been under dispute. But you can't know for certain that those physical manifestations are in response to the same emotion that another person with the same physical manifestations is experiencing.

Note also, for the sake of avoiding confusion, that we may be talking about two different physical reactions here. There is the physical reaction to the stimulus - the neuronal reaction that presumably causes the emotional experience - and then there is the physical reaction to the emotion - the reaction caused by the emotion itself.

Here's the cause and effect chain (still simplified):

Stimulus --> Neuronal reaction --> Emotion (psychological reaction) --> Physical manifestations

However, we can't measure the psychological reaction. So it's really more of a black box problem:

Stimulus --> Neuronal reaction --> BLACK BOX --> Physical Manifestations

Now, one can assume that the black box is doing the same thing in everyone, but that would be an untestable assumption. Thus, using the physical manifestations to define the emotion rests upon an untestable assumption.

Not that I'm a creationist or a intelligent design proponent, but I have some issues with the Theory of Evolution. It has some validity but there's some things I can't wrap my head around:

1. Why do species evolve? It's not like animal have active control over what they want their offspring to develop, and I don't think promotion of certain genes allowed the dinosaurs to develop wings and learn to fly with them.

Mutation is random and constant, under stress it even increases - it only takes a mutation to provide a small advantage for it to become predominant in a species - you might even get a gene that provides an advantage but for some reason, death of the carrier, it never takes but given enough time, advantages will accrue compared to disadvantages.

2. Why do these evolving offspring evolve in the nearly exact same direction? if we attribute it to promotion of certain genes, there's so many deviations different organisms possess in their individual genetic make-up, so it doesn't quite make sense.

Each mutation is very small, a tiny change here, a tiny change there, it's not like a mutation suddenly causes wings and, even if it did, that offspring would probably be killed if not be unlikely to mate - small changes over great time is the key.

Time and pressure, time and pressure.

1. Why do species evolve? It's not like animal have active control over what they want their offspring to develop, and I don't think promotion of certain genes allowed the dinosaurs to develop wings and learn to fly with them.

(a) You're right that it isn't an actively controlled process. Creatures don't choose what genes mutate or which ones to pass on to our offspring. This is where natural selection comes in. Creatures that do better - that are more likely to live to reproductive age and be reproductively successful - also pass on their genetic material more. As such, particularly helpful genetic traits will get passed on more often. Particularly harmful traits will get passed on less often. Neutral traits could go either way, depending largely on which ones may occur most often with helpful ones.

And a harmful or neutral trait can, with changing environment, become a helpful trait that then gets selected for.

(b) Why couldn't dinosaurs develop wings over many successive generations?

2. Why do these evolving offspring evolve in the nearly exact same direction? if we attribute it to promotion of certain genes, there's so many deviations different organisms possess in their individual genetic make-up, so it doesn't quite make sense.

You're trying to think of it in terms of individual, rather than group dynamics. The variation present within populations generally isn't going to go away. But it gets shifted. Imagine a normal distribution - a perfect bell curve. Now imagine a distribution skewed to the left or right. That's what we're look at. And, after a while, the skewing evens out and you're left with a normal population around a new middle.

If we try to compare two individual offspring, we won't see evidence that they are "evolving in nearly the exact same direction". But the group as a whole will be shifted towards that direction.

Neurological scientists tend to talk about physical reactions associated with an emotion, from what I've seen.

But I was speaking more along the lines of what the word means in general. When most people talk about "love", they are talking about their psychological experiences. They are talking about what they feel, not how they act.
But what would you mean with "feel" then? Afterall, we know that the warm blush on your face is caused by the widening of the veins in your face. Or do you mean the thought "I'm in love" or something similair.
Or, maybe it's the other way around. Your physical reactions are how your body reacts to the psychological experience.
Certain things happen simultaniously. For example, if a person shows his love to you, that input gets analysed by different parts of the brain. For example the unconcious part, who would raise your heartbeat and open the veins in your face. Your concious part would analyse the data as well, not alwayse succesfull (e.a, misinterpretation of someone).


Anyway, I think we have a little problem here. One with definitions. Before we continue, could you explain exactly what you mean with the words emotion and love. Think its vital to get this straight ;)

Yes, ok... I understand, but isn't this sort of based on the assumption that there's a gene for every trait an organism has? If this were true, again, going back to the dinosaurs and wings example, wouldn't there have to a, umm... wing-developing gene? Maybe we don't understand about genetics to posit that yet, but I'm not sure.

Also, the process of natural selection is what you guys are saying causes certain traits to develop. But, what process of natural selection would make a land-faring creature need to develop wings? It's not like they kept deciding to jump off ledges and flapping their arms until that happend... right?:D

Again, my arguements are probably fallacious.

Yes, ok... I understand, but isn't this sort of based on the assumption that there's a gene for every trait an organism has? If this were true, again, going back to the dinosaurs and wings example, wouldn't there have to a, umm... wing-developing gene? Maybe we don't understand about genetics to posit that yet, but I'm not sure.

Also, the process of natural selection is what you guys are saying causes certain traits to develop. But, what process of natural selection would make a land-faring creature need to develop wings? It's not like they kept deciding to jump off ledges and flapping their arms until that happend... right?:D

Again, my arguements are probably fallacious.

You can see jumping farther as an advantage right? It might help catch prey, it might help escape predators. Each tiny mutation that allows a species to jump further, stronger legs, slightly more skin area between joints, longer hairs - anything that helps you jump is beneficial.

The same sorts of things that help jumping work across species but not every species evolves to jump further, some run faster, some hide better, all sorts of things.

Over time, the advantages remain, and generally these advantages fall into 3 categories - find food, run away and mate.

Stronger legs, lighter bones, more skin area, longer hairs...

Time and pressure creates wings - there's no initial gene to create wings, merely a long line of mutations that result in genes that form wings.

But what would you mean with "feel" then? Afterall, we know that the warm blush on your face is caused by the widening of the veins in your face. Or do you mean the thought "I'm in love" or something similair.

More along the lines of the thought. It's the psychological experience of feeling love. It is in the consciousness, although it is certainly more than just thinking, "I'm in love."


Anyway, I think we have a little problem here. One with definitions. Before we continue, could you explain exactly what you mean with the words emotion and love. Think its vital to get this straight ;)

I'm speaking of what happens within your consciousness. You may exhibit anger to other people by yelling (or you may be the type of person who goes off to stew in another room). Your heart rate and blood pressure may go up. You may sweat, clench your fists, and your face may get red. But those things are the physical manifestations of the emotion. The emotion itself - anger, in this case - is what you feel within your own psyche.

Love is a particular emotion and emotions are always hard to define, since they are subjectively experienced. "Very strong affection for someone" perhaps?

Or, maybe it's the other way around. Your physical reactions are how your body reacts to the psychological experience.



You can empirically measure the physical manifestations of emotion, yes. That hasn't been under dispute. But you can't know for certain that those physical manifestations are in response to the same emotion that another person with the same physical manifestations is experiencing.

Note also, for the sake of avoiding confusion, that we may be talking about two different physical reactions here. There is the physical reaction to the stimulus - the neuronal reaction that presumably causes the emotional experience - and then there is the physical reaction to the emotion - the reaction caused by the emotion itself.

Here's the cause and effect chain (still simplified):

Stimulus --> Neuronal reaction --> Emotion (psychological reaction) --> Physical manifestations

However, we can't measure the psychological reaction. So it's really more of a black box problem:

Stimulus --> Neuronal reaction --> BLACK BOX --> Physical Manifestations

Now, one can assume that the black box is doing the same thing in everyone, but that would be an untestable assumption. Thus, using the physical manifestations to define the emotion rests upon an untestable assumption.

You're misinterpreting one thing. If it is a neurological reaction that creates the emotion, then it is that neurological reaction that would be considered love. Furthermore, physiological reactions are to that neurological reaction, not the psychological one.

The neuronal reaction that you say creates the emotion also creates it's physical reaction. But the emotion itself is not the psychological interpretation. It is what is being interpreted, which is the neurological factor.

The debate was never whether we could measure the degree of love you feel. Or measure love in any regard. But rather we can test for the pressence of love. And we can, we can do it by observation and experimentation.

Yes, ok... I understand, but isn't this sort of based on the assumption that there's a gene for every trait an organism has?

Actually, very few traits are controlled by a single gene. In simplified terms, we talk about it that way, but it's very rarely true. Even a seemingly simple trait like skin color is controlled by at least 5 different genes in human beings.

If this were true, again, going back to the dinosaurs and wings example, wouldn't there have to a, umm... wing-developing gene? Maybe we don't understand about genetics to posit that yet, but I'm not sure.

There would be quite a few genes involved in the development of wings - some of them absolutely necessary and some of them that can be compensated for.

Take, for instance, drosophila (fruitflies). There is a gene in that species called "wingless". It's called that because, if we get rid of it or make it non-functional, the flies do not develop wings. But that gene alone would also not be sufficient to develop wings. There are other genes involved as well.

Also, the process of natural selection is what you guys are saying causes certain traits to develop. But, what process of natural selection would make a land-faring creature need to develop wings? It's not like they kept deciding to jump off ledges and flapping their arms until that happend... right?:D

No, but they may have begun to develop gliding properties and then eventually developed flight.

When we talk about evolution, we aren't talking about a creature with no wings whatsoever giving birth to a creature with the type of wings we see in a species that relies upon them. There are a lot of successive steps in between.

It could start off with a creature with skin flaps on the forelimbs. Those flaps help provide just a little bit of lift when the creature pounces for food or jumps from tree to tree, so it survives and produces more offspring. Over a great deal of time and many, many generations, those skin flaps get bigger and develop bones and muscle control. Eventually, you have wings.

Again, this is an incorrect application of the scientific method. But even if it were correct, you can not learn how to balance yourself on a bike without teaching your muscles how to instinctively balance your body and the bicycle. The scientific method will not teach you this.

What exactly is your idea of the Scientific Method? And yes the method would teach you how to balance yourself on the bike. It only becomes instinct after contiued practice. The method can teach you that you need to position your body to the left for a left turn, or right for a right turn. This is stuff we learn through experimentation. We experiment with different ways of riding the bike to see which one is the correct way.

You're misinterpreting one thing. If it is a neurological reaction that creates the emotion, then it is that neurological reaction that would be considered love.

No, it wouldn't. The concept of love - the definition of love - was determined long before we even knew that neurons existed.

Love is defined by the emotional reaction - one which we then try to understand from a physiological standpoint.

Furthermore, physiological reactions are to that neurological reaction, not the psychological one.

Now that's hard to say. We don't have even a basic handle on how consciousness works. We know in a vague manner that it is related to neurological reaction, but we don't know how to connect the two. It is certainly possible that the psychological reaction can be both an output and in input.

The neuronal reaction that you say creates the emotion also creates it's physical reaction.

Not necessarily.

But the emotion itself is not the psychological interpretation. It is what is being interpreted, which is the neurological factor.

If that were true, we would have measured the neurological factor and defined the emotion by that factor.

We didn't, though. We felt the emotion, and then started looking for neurological factors that might be related.

The debate was never whether we could measure the degree of love you feel. Or measure love in any regard. But rather we can test for the pressence of love. And we can, we can do it by observation and experimentation.

If we cannot measure love in any regard, we cannot test for the presence of love. We are left to assume - without empirically testing - that what we are measuring is an indicator of the presence of love.

If we cannot measure love in any regard, we cannot test for the presence of love. We are left to assume - without empirically testing - that what we are measuring is an indicator of the presence of love.

You are assuming that we cannot identify love. Which is what the argument is to begin with.

But here's what you fail to understand. And I will say it again. If you take a group of people. Ask them what they love and they share a neurological experience when they are introduce to the stimulus. Then we can identify that neurological experience as love. Why? Because the people have already connected it to love. We can also link physiological signs to the neurological experience. If we link the signs of love, and those signs are shared by a large group of people when they are expeirencing what they feel as love then we can identify that love because a word is defined by a commonality. If a large group feel a particular neurological experience and identify it as love then it a commonality.

You are assuming that we cannot identify love. Which is what the argument is to begin with

I'm not assuming any such thing. I can certainly identify love. What I cannot do is identify what love is to another person. And because I cannot identify that, I cannot empirically test for love in another person.

I can ask them if they feel love. I can try and get a sense from their description of whether or not it is the emotion I identify as love. I can look for physical manifestations of whatever emotion they say they are feeling. But I cannot empirically test that emotion.

But here's what you fail to understand. And I will say it again. If you take a group of people. Ask them what they love and they share a neurological experience when they are introduce to the stimulus. Then we can identify that neurological experience as love. Why? Because the people have already connected it to love.

....which may or may not be the same thing for all of them.


It's like the following:

Suppose you ask 100 people to do an experiment to measure water quality. You don't check to see if they're using the same definition of water quality or if they're using the same procedure. All you do is monitor their ordering habits to see if they are ordering similar products. At the end, they all give you an answer on a scale, which you then average together.

Can you then say that you have empirically measured water quality?

I believe you misunderstand the definition of empirical testing.

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism
— em·pir·i·cal·ly \-i-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


See definition 3? Capable of beind disproved or verified by observation or experiment? We can experiment to verify a commonalty in what love is. We can obeserve those commonalities. We're not asking them to tell us HOW they feel when love. We're looking for symptoms of love and connecting it with a condition. It is the same way we test for diseases. We look for what they do. You would have to discount anything that has been discovered by this method.

And, here's the thing, we identified the signs of love first, then asked other people if they had these symptoms, then we gave a name to these symptoms and called them love. We have a clear definition for love that we can identify and therein, test for based on that definition.

Main Entry: 1love
Pronunciation: \ˈləv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lēof dear, Latin lubēre, libēre to please
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1): strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2): attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3): affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b: an assurance of love <give her my love>
2: warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>
3 a: the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was his first love> b (1): a beloved person : darling —often used as a term of endearment (2)British —used as an informal term of address
4 a: unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1): the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2): brotherly concern for others b: a person's adoration of God
5: a god or personification of love
6: an amorous episode : love affair
7: the sexual embrace : copulation
8: a score of zero (as in tennis)
9capitalized Christian Science : god
— at love : holding one's opponent scoreless in tennis
— in love : inspired by affection

That is the offiicial definition of love. Using it we can look for the associated neurological and physiological signs.

Regardless of whether you have your own unique interpretation of it, we have an official definition that is the generally accepted definition.

See definition 3? Capable of beind disproved or verified by observation or experiment? We can experiment to verify a commonalty in what love is.

No, we can't, specifically because we cannot experience another person's experience of love.

If we cannot measure what love is to another person, we cannot experiment to verify a commonality.

At best, we can ask them about it.

But go ahead. Prove or disprove that I feel love for my husband.

We're not asking them to tell us HOW they feel when love.

Love = "how they feel"

We cannot identify love without first asking how they feel.

We're looking for symptoms of love and connecting it with a condition. It is the same way we test for diseases. We look for what they do. You would have to discount anything that has been discovered by this method.

....except it isn't. A disease is defined by its symptoms. We discover a disease by first seeing the symptoms and then defining the disease.

What you are trying to suggest is the exact opposite process - that we would start with a condition (ie. love) and then try and match "symptoms" to it. The problem with that, of course, is that we don't even know if the condition (ie. love) is the same in all cases.

And, here's the thing, we identified the signs of love first, then asked other people if they had these symptoms, then we gave a name to these symptoms and called them love. We have a clear definition for love that we can identify and therein, test for based on that definition.

Wrong. First, we defined the concept of love based on psychological experience. Then we asked people if they felt that emotion - if they had that psychological experience. When they said yes, we tested for "symptoms" - physical manifestations.

Those symptoms are not, however, the emotion itself.

That is the offiicial definition of love.

And it is incredibly subjective, relying upon psychological phenomena that we cannot measure.

"Affection" is a psychological phenomenon. It refers to how you feel about another person. So, again, we're back to self-diagnosis.

Regardless of whether you have your own unique interpretation of it, we have an official definition that is the generally accepted definition.

That "official definition" is pretty ephemeral. Affection can mean many different things to many people. You haven't escaped the fact that we are discussing a psychological phenomenon by defining it with terms that lock in that fact.

We have an "official definition" of honor, too. Now ask people what is involved in being honorable. You won't get the same answer twice.

Wrong. First, we defined the concept of love based on psychological experience. Then we asked people if they felt that emotion - if they had that psychological experience. When they said yes, we tested for "symptoms" - physical manifestations.


Actually. That's incorrect. First, someone had a feeling. Not a psychological experience. A sensation. They then, most probably, asked other people about that sensation. They then discovered other people had similart sensations. They then, after identifying these sensations, which would be symptoms, labelled it as love. Well actually they labelled it as what today we call love, except they used another word for it because they spoke another language then what we do now. Years later, someone decided to classify those sensations as an emotion. We didn't start with saying "You know, I think I'm in love" and then set out to classify love. We started with a symptom and correlated it to a common phenomnon we found in others. We then gave it a name.

Your argument is that love isn't necessarily the same for you and me. But the flaw is, as I've stated, the aforementioned test that I suggested several pages previously and even the neurological study I mentioned in this or the last page would PROVE or alternatively DISPROVE your theory and the same goes for my own.

Actually. That's incorrect. First, someone had a feeling. Not a psychological experience. A sensation.

A feeling, in the sense used here, is a psychological experience.

The sensations we refer to as emotions are psychological. They occur within our consciousness and we are aware of them through that medium.

Your argument is that love isn't necessarily the same for you and me. But the flaw is, as I've stated, the aforementioned test that I suggested several pages previously and even the neurological study I mentioned in this or the last page would PROVE or alternatively DISPROVE your theory and the same goes for my own.

....except it wouldn't. Because you can't measure how I feel. You cannot experience it for yourself. All you can do is ask me.

A feeling, in the sense used here, is a psychological experience.

The sensations we refer to as emotions are psychological. They occur within our consciousness and we are aware of them through that medium.



....except it wouldn't. Because you can't measure how I feel. You cannot experience it for yourself. All you can do is ask me.

No one wants to measure how you feel. That has no baring on this. You assume love is a psychological experience. But this has not been proven. You assume that everybody interprets love differently. Once more, this has not been proven. Furthermore. recent studies have indicate anger and fear, both which are emotions, have neurological indicators and those studies imply that emotion is a neurological experience rather then a psychological one.

Until the studies are performed, you can not prove your theory. I have offered an experiment that could, however, prove my own theory. You say that we can't test for love, that we can't measure love. But we can. It doesn't mean we can find it. But we can test for it.

No one wants to measure how you feel.

Then they aren't measuring my emotion, since my emotion is defined by how I feel.

You assume love is a psychological experience. But this has not been proven.

It's defined that way.

You assume that everybody interprets love differently. Once more, this has not been proven.

Not at all. I recognize the very likely possibility that love is not the same for everyone.

It can't be proven or disproven because it is untestable.

Furthermore. recent studies have indicate anger and fear, both which are emotions, have neurological indicators and those studies imply that emotion is a neurological experience rather then a psychological one.

No, they imply that there are physical indicators of emotion - something I've never disputed. Neurological indicators do not discount the fact that we are referring to a psychological experience when we use the word emotion.

Until the studies are performed, you can not prove your theory.

I'm not putting forth a theory. I'm pointing out that the studies cannot be performed because we cannot measure the subjective experience of another.

Seriously, step back for a second and look at what I'm actually saying, instead of what you want me to say.

I have offered an experiment that could, however, prove my own theory. You say that we can't test for love, that we can't measure love. But we can. It doesn't mean we can find it. But we can test for it.

None of the experiments you have proposed test for love. They propose that we ask someone if they are feeling love and then test certain physical responses. The actual emotion is never tested in such a set-up.


Again, I'll ask this question:

Suppose you ask 100 people to do an experiment to measure water quality. You don't check to see if they're using the same definition of water quality or if they're using the same procedure. All you do is monitor their ordering habits to see if they are ordering similar products. At the end, they all give you an answer on a scale, which you then average together.

Can you then say that you have empirically measured water quality?

Science is never complete indeed, because we never know what we might encounter in the future.

But it's easy how to determine that, it's simply the input > brain > output. The things you feel are output (ánd input for other things at the same time) from, in this case for example, certain eye contact or someone saying "I love you" against you. It's all cause and effect. It starts somewhere: you fall in love, e.a some kind of input triggered a respons wich you describe as "I'm in love with that person."

Sweet Lord. This is eerily like discussing religion with an Evangelical Christian.

Look, I don't need clarification or repetition of your ideas. Frankly, they're old hat to me.

I'm interested in your reason for maintaining the position that causality can be determined. In essence, what's the evidence you can give me for a causal link between two events, particularly neurological activity and feelings of love?

Sweet Lord. This is eerily like discussing religion with an Evangelical Christian.

Look, I don't need clarification or repetition of your ideas. Frankly, they're old hat to me.

I'm interested in your reason for maintaining the position that causality can be determined. In essence, what's the evidence you can give me for a causal link between two events, particularly neurological activity and feelings of love?

http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/what_is_love.htm

Certainly not conclusive but we're only beginning to understand the brain - it's the 'other' last frontier.

One could argue that something has to trigger these, visual, sensual and olfactory inputs but there are connections and although you can state til the blue moon comes that one can't prove feelings of love are experienced in the same way, the evidence is growing in weight - never conclusive for sure, as has been pointed out, we can never discount that people are lying or describing different intensities of feelings...

...still, we could say that about many, many things.

http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/what_is_love.htm

Certainly not conclusive but we're only beginning to understand the brain - it's the 'other' last frontier.

One could argue that something has to trigger these, visual, sensual and olfactory inputs but there are connections and although you can state til the blue moon comes that one can't prove feelings of love are experienced in the same way, the evidence is growing in weight - never conclusive for sure, as has been pointed out, we can never discount that people are lying or describing different intensities of feelings...

...still, we could say that about many, many things.

Dude. I'm aware of the findings. Have been for a couple years now. I'm not asking for correlations. I'm wanting direct evidence of causality.

Dude. I'm aware of the findings. Have been for a couple years now. I'm not asking for correlations. I'm wanting direct evidence of causality.

This rolled in my head for a while, I was in danger of repeating myself and others...

Do feelings of love come first and enact these chemical changes?

I'm fairly sure we'll soon understand, and I suspect those truths will be hard to bear, why people are attracted to other people, I'd say it's a process of matching characteristics and that these set off chemical reactions. I'd hesitate to say it positively but my guess would be that we receive chemicals from others that strongly influence matching, albeit among many other factors but far more than we think, I'd say the eyes are a strong countering factor.

Can we empirically measure love - well, as already said, we'd really have to define 'love' accurately, I suspect this entails breaking it down into many separate components.

I'd bet that soon enough, we'd be able to make pretty accurate predictions on individuals given a modicum of testing. Certainly not perfect but pretty accurate.

Of course, this is all entirely hypothetical for the moment but we can hazard educated guesses much as we can the make up of the universe.

I guess that's as much as we can say.

This rolled in my head for a while, I was in danger of repeating myself and others...

Do feelings of love come first and enact these chemical changes?

I'm fairly sure we'll soon understand, and I suspect those truths will be hard to bear, why people are attracted to other people, I'd say it's a process of matching characteristics and that these set off chemical reactions. I'd hesitate to say it positively but my guess would be that we receive chemicals from others that strongly influence matching, albeit among many other factors but far more than we think, I'd say the eyes are a strong countering factor.

Can we empirically measure love - well, as already said, we'd really have to define 'love' accurately, I suspect this entails breaking it down into many separate components.

I'd bet that soon enough, we'd be able to make pretty accurate predictions on individuals given a modicum of testing. Certainly not perfect but pretty accurate.

Of course, this is all entirely hypothetical for the moment but we can hazard educated guesses much as we can the make up of the universe.

I guess that's as much as we can say.

That's a very modest and honest post, and I appreciate it.

The thing is, I don't really mind the idea of testing empirically for love. Yes, it has some rather obvious difficulties, but no more so than any other testing involving human behavior.

My concern is how we arrive at the conclusion that one causes the other. If what we have is a correlation, even a strong one, between reported feelings of love and certain kinds of neurological activity, where's the causal link? Sure, we can assume that one causes the other, but I'm wondering why we do that. Does the evidence really give us grounds to claim that there's a causal link, or are we just predisposed to think that physical phenomena are always the source of our experiences?

That's a very modest and honest post, and I appreciate it.

The thing is, I don't really mind the idea of testing empirically for love. Yes, it has some rather obvious difficulties, but no more so than any other testing involving human behavior.

My concern is how we arrive at the conclusion that one causes the other. If what we have is a correlation, even a strong one, between reported feelings of love and certain kinds of neurological activity, where's the causal link? Sure, we can assume that one causes the other, but I'm wondering why we do that. Does the evidence really give us grounds to claim that there's a causal link, or are we just predisposed to think that physical phenomenon are always the source of our experiences?

If we can show that pheremones, purely as an example, light up certain parts of the brain and cause a chemical reaction, the release of dopamine say, that high levels of dopamine are prevalent in people noting who they feel attracted to - cross test that with who they find visually pleasing....and so on.

EDIT: Point being that the cause can be outside factors that are translated, then cause internal - where 'love' starts is hard to say

Smell, in my estimation, is a far stronger sense than I suspect we imagine - I suspect memories are often triggered by smell, I suspect our brain retains a very strong memory of smell and, beyond that, chemicals that enter our blood stream through the nasal channel - cocaine is an example of this working - hit the brain very quickly, a very useful tool.

Between smell and sight, I'd say we could determine what makes people attractive to others, what chemicals match other people's chemicals, what visual cues relate to that.

If I go really far out there, I'd say that personality, unless extreme, is actually far less important than we currently believe, that the right chemical and visual matches cause our brain to accept, or find conducive, their personality through a certain bias.

I should back all this up with evidence but I think any current evidence is simply too weak for a compelling argument.

As I say, we're at the outer frontiers of understanding any of this right now so take that shaker and add a grain of salt.

EDIT: Going way off into my own thoughts here, not even sure I'm answering your questions, also I suspect it's way off topic

My concern is how we arrive at the conclusion that one causes the other. If what we have is a correlation, even a strong one, between reported feelings of love and certain kinds of neurological activity, where's the causal link? Sure, we can assume that one causes the other, but I'm wondering why we do that. Does the evidence really give us grounds to claim that there's a causal link, or are we just predisposed to think that physical phenomena are always the source of our experiences?

well, we can manipulate things by intervening to see whether doing so brings about a change in other things. thus we can sort out which way causation runs, or whether the two things are instead linked by each being the effect of some third thing, etc. same way we always sort out this sort of stuff, really.

well, we can manipulate things by intervening to see whether doing so brings about a change in other things. thus we can sort out which way causation runs, or whether the two things are instead linked by each being the effect of some third thing, etc. same way we always sort out this sort of stuff, really.

That doesn't always work. You frequently run into problems of the Observer's paradox. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer%27s_paradox)

We've not been looking at Causation. I have implied that neurological experience is the causation of psychological experience... and there is a reason for that.

Without the neurological experience we would have no psychological experience. We would have no physiological experience. Are psyche only exists because we have a mind. Neurology is the study of the processes of that mind. Psychology is the study of the concious interpretation of data received by those processes.

Now, that is largely conjecture that I've come to based on studies and basic understanding of the human brain so don't argue that I have no proof, I realize this.

Dempublicents has been speaking as if we decided there was a thing called love and then decided to correlate it with experience. However, we first correlated experiences that we then decided to identify and classify as love. The same way we did with gravity, the same way we did with energy, with life, with though, with taste and touch and all the senses.

Your argument only works if you apply it to everything. I mean. We can't test taste because we don't know if your definition of taste is the same as mine. We can't test sight because we don't know if your definition of sight is the same as mine. All those eye tests should be thrown out. IT'S NOT THAT HE CAN'T SEE IT, HE JUST INTERPRETS IT DIFFERENTLY! Oh, hell, why am I writing this, I cant test whether you'll even see what I'm writing as what I actually see when I typed it... maybe I'll find you and ask you on the street! Oh wait, we can't test hearing either so the sounds you hear must not be what I hear! Maybe I'll communicate in a system of pokes and prods! NO! I can't be sure you feel a poke and prod the same way that I DO! You might think I poked you when I prodded you and get cat instead of dog and bomb instead of pet and the whole world will be filled with catbombs. Which might not be such a bad thing because I can't be certain that you feel a catbomb is the same thing I feel a catbomb is!

Obviously that is a facetious rambling of sorts. But it does have a message and a point. You believe we can't test for love because it is a psychological experience. But the problem is, there is no such thing as a purely psychological experience. Neurological, psychological, physiological. The whole of human experience is felt by these three processes. Everything. Emotions, Sensations, Thoughts, Bio-Chemical reactions. You can no more remove the physiology of love then you can remove the psychology. It's not about causation, it's not about measure. It's about basic logic.

We don't have to find the actual nuclear bomb to know if it's been detonated. We can test for radiation. We can observe the area of damage. We can look at the signs and say, with reasonable certainity that a nuclear bomb was used.

If we know that there are certain, definitive neurological and physiological responses to a particular psychological stimulus (Love, Fear, Anger) then we can identify when that psychological stimulus is present based on the presence or lack thereof, of those responses. Regardles if the neurological response creates the psychological, or the psychological creates the neurological has no effect.

well, we can manipulate things by intervening to see whether doing so brings about a change in other things. thus we can sort out which way causation runs, or whether the two things are instead linked by each being the effect of some third thing, etc. same way we always sort out this sort of stuff, really.

Ok. Let's take a really simple hypothetical example and say that we do some studies and we notice that 95% of the time when there are not certain pheromones present, people's brains don't exhibit the neurological activity that correlates with love. But 95% of the time when those pheromones are present, people's brains do exhibit that activity.

We've intervened and seen that the kind of neurological activity associated with love follows the presence of pheromones the vast majority of the time. Have we just showed that the pheromones cause the neurological activity which causes the experience? Or have we showed that the pheromones cause the experience which causes the neurological activity?

Let's say that we do another study and inject people with a chemical that suppresses the kind of neurological activity associated with love, and 95% of the time, people no longer report the experience of love when they have that chemical in their system. How do we know if the chemical is suppressing the neurological activity which causes the experience of love, or if the chemical is suppressing the experience of love which causes the neurological activity? After all, if a physical reality can cause an experience directly, why couldn't a different physical reality stop an experience directly?

Ok. Let's take a really simple hypothetical example and say that we do some studies and we notice that 95% of the time when there are not certain pheromones present, people's brains don't exhibit the neurological activity that correlates with love. But 95% of the time when those pheromones are present, people's brains do exhibit that activity.

We've intervened and seen that the kind of neurological activity associated with love follows the presence of pheromones the vast majority of the time. Have we just showed that the pheromones cause the neurological activity which causes the experience? Or have we showed that the pheromones cause the experience which causes the neurological activity?

ok, so the two proposed chains of causation are
p -> n -> e
p -> e -> n

(a third is that the n and e are independent of each other with p as a common cause for both, e <- p -> n)

sounds to me like you need to block the neurological activity and see what happens. if you block it and the experience still occurs, then the pheromones would appear to be causing it directly, and the neurological activity is just an epiphenomena. and if it doesn't, then it would appear that the neurological activity is causally prior to the experience.

which brings us to...

Let's say that we do another study and inject people with a chemical that suppresses the kind of neurological activity associated with love, and 95% of the time, people no longer report the experience of love when they have that chemical in their system. How do we know if the chemical is suppressing the neurological activity which causes the experience of love, or if the chemical is suppressing the experience of love which causes the neurological activity? After all, if a physical reality can cause an experience directly, why couldn't a different physical reality stop an experience directly?

here the proposed relations are something like:

c -> ~n -> ~e
~e <- c -> ~n
c -> ~e -> ~n

and here what you need is to intervene in the other way, to stimulate the neurological activity in another fashion while still having the possibly experience denying chemical present. if the experience is causally independent of or prior to the neurological activity, then it should remain absent. if the experience does show up, it looks like the first causal account is on the right track.

of course, it's trickier than this in real life, but it is totally discoverable in principle.

Wanna know a funny thing? I live in the country with the largest catholic population in the world and Creationism is cited only for about 15 minutes in the school, just before "lamarckism", just as a comparsion basis to the teaching of Darwin's theory.

I absolutelly cannot understand why some countries make such a fuss about it. You don't need to be be less christian just because you accept the evolution theory. If God created everything, He created the goo and He guided evolution.

Or do you believe the world was actually created in 6 days?

My concern is how we arrive at the conclusion that one causes the other. If what we have is a correlation, even a strong one, between reported feelings of love and certain kinds of neurological activity, where's the causal link? Sure, we can assume that one causes the other, but I'm wondering why we do that. Does the evidence really give us grounds to claim that there's a causal link, or are we just predisposed to think that physical phenomena are always the source of our experiences?

I think it's largely the latter. Some people are so stuck in that paradigm that they can't even fathom the idea that it might be otherwise.

Part of that is related to the axioms of science itself. Built into the scientific method is the axiomatic assumption of determinism and clear cause-effect relationships. It is this assumption that allows us to conclude that, if something has happened every time we've run a test, there is some rule - something in the way the universe works - that means it will always happen that way, given the same inputs. The axiom necessary to the method, but is untested - and cannot be tested by science because the very process of science rests upon it.

For those who believe that all things can be determined by science, the idea that this assumption could be incorrect is an anathema.


Dempublicents has been speaking as if we decided there was a thing called love and then decided to correlate it with experience.

Dempublicents has done no such thing.

What I have done is point out that the experiences we assigned the name "love" to are internal - psychological.

We then started looking for physiological signs of this psychological experience.

However, we first correlated experiences that we then decided to identify and classify as love. The same way we did with gravity, the same way we did with energy, with life, with though, with taste and touch and all the senses.

....the difference being that all of the measured events that led us to posit theories on gravity, energy, ect. can be shared. We can all drop an object and measure it's mass and velocity. Two people can do this for the exact same object.

Emotion, however, is a different subject. You can't feel my emotion and I can't feel yours. There is no method by which we can actually share experience or measure the experience of another - because we only experience it through our psyche.

Your argument only works if you apply it to everything.

Not if you actually understand what my argument is.

I mean. We can't test taste because we don't know if your definition of taste is the same as mine.

There are aspects of taste that we can't empirically test. We can look at the chemical reactions involved in the breakdown of a certain food item and we can see what taste buds are being used and what neurons are being fired.

But when it comes to the subjective parts of taste - things like whether or not a certain taste is enjoyable - we can't empirically measure that. We can only ask those doing the tasting.

The problem with empirical testing of emotion is that emotion is completely a subjective experience. We're not putting a single food item on someone's tongue and measuring it's breakdown. Instead, an analogy would be having the person put a food item in their mouth that we never see or analyze, and then looking only at the firing of neurons. Even if two people have similar regions of neurons firing in the brain, we do not know what food either of those two people actually put in their mouth. It might be the same food. It might be two entirely different foods.

We can't test sight because we don't know if your definition of sight is the same as mine. All those eye tests should be thrown out.

Now you're getting silly. We can test sight because the things we're looking at are a shared experience. Whether we see it exactly the same or not, the object is there. Light is refracting off of it. Multiple different people can look at it, measure it's shape and size, etc.

Now, again, when we get down to subjective experience, we're at a loss on empirical testing. Is this color pretty? We can't empirically test that. Does "blue" in my mind's eye look the same as it does to you? Again, we can't empirically test that.

And, as I said, the problem with trying to empirically test emotions is that they are subjective experiences by definition. We use the words for emotions to describe what we're feeling internally - what "blue" looks like in our mind's eye, as an analogy.

Is this color pretty? We can't empirically test that.

well, we can ask people, and define our terms better. that'll get us an empirical answer about whether particular colors are pretty in the context of various biological and social facts

Does "blue" in my mind's eye look the same as it does to you? Again, we can't empirically test that.

except that we can clearly test whether somebody sees the same color distinctions we do, and we (partially) know the mechanisms that cause such. how we experience things in our minds is the outcome of a set of shared biological and physical facts. minds are physical. nothing spooky happens here, we are all running on roughly the same unified biological hardware/software package, and changes to that package create observable and discoverable changes to the experience. thus unless you have a mechanism describing how we might each be experiencing things differently, our internal experiences are approximately the same.

And, as I said, the problem with trying to empirically test emotions is that they are subjective experiences by definition.

so is pain. so is blurry vision.

....the difference being that all of the measured events that led us to posit theories on gravity, energy, ect. can be shared. We can all drop an object and measure it's mass and velocity. Two people can do this for the exact same object.

Emotion, however, is a different subject. You can't feel my emotion and I can't feel yours. There is no method by which we can actually share experience or measure the experience of another - because we only experience it through our psyche.

Once again. You assume we only experience it through our psyche. That does not mean we do. You seem to believe that the conciousness can be seperated from the mind. That are conciousness and our mind work independently of each other. This is highly irrational. Without a mind, love would mean nothing. Taste would mean nothing. We would not be having this debate.


There are aspects of taste that we can't empirically test. We can look at the chemical reactions involved in the breakdown of a certain food item and we can see what taste buds are being used and what neurons are being fired.

But when it comes to the subjective parts of taste - things like whether or not a certain taste is enjoyable - we can't empirically measure that. We can only ask those doing the tasting.

The problem with empirical testing of emotion is that emotion is completely a subjective experience. We're not putting a single food item on someone's tongue and measuring it's breakdown. Instead, an analogy would be having the person put a food item in their mouth that we never see or analyze, and then looking only at the firing of neurons. Even if two people have similar regions of neurons firing in the brain, we do not know what food either of those two people actually put in their mouth. It might be the same food. It might be two entirely different foods.

Once again, you're making a very bold assumption that has evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, in accordance with your analogy. It's flawed. We're not asking WHAT you're tasting but IF you are tasting. We can tell that, by the neurons, that you are tasting something.


Now you're getting silly. We can test sight because the things we're looking at are a shared experience. Whether we see it exactly the same or not, the object is there. Light is refracting off of it. Multiple different people can look at it, measure it's shape and size, etc.

Now, again, when we get down to subjective experience, we're at a loss on empirical testing. Is this color pretty? We can't empirically test that. Does "blue" in my mind's eye look the same as it does to you? Again, we can't empirically test that.

And, as I said, the problem with trying to empirically test emotions is that they are subjective experiences by definition. We use the words for emotions to describe what we're feeling internally - what "blue" looks like in our mind's eye, as an analogy.

Neurology is the study of the working of the brain(well technically of the nervous system, of which the brain happens to be a part of.) Now, unless your hypothesis is that our psyche can exist without a brain. Or more directly, that our psyche operate without the use of the brain at all then you would have to provide some proof to that.

Untill you do, your theory seems wholly illogical. And let me explain.

In order for love to be an untestable/unprovable experience you would have to discount all psychological experience as untestable. If we did that, we could no longer produce the drugs that are meant to deal with psycholgical experiences. Since we can no longer create the drugs that target those experiences. Leading to a spike in psychosis related deaths. We will have no choice but to then hunt down and target anyone who exhibits any associated sign with such a psychological experience and execute them immediately to prevent the spread. The End.

Hallucinations, paranoia, and a great deal of psychosis are psychologocia experiences. And since they're psychological experiences any correlation to neurological activity is completly irrelevant. Meaning that all the drugs we've created to target the productions of certain chemicals or to target certain parts of the mind to prevent certain neurons from firint would have no point because obviously those neurological factors have absolutely no baring on whether or not the person is actually SUFFERING hallucinations, paranoia, or any other psyscosis.

You cannot discount a common link because you don't want to accept it.

The fact that you believe we should discount a common link because we can't prove that the common link is actually linked to what we were testing for is... quite stupid. No offense meant, but do you realize the absolute astronomical odds against that? That you could take a 100 people and they would all have the same neurological and physiological symproms while they are feeling what they each individually express as love? Honestly, do you realize how foolish that sounds? "Oh so what if 91 out of 100 people have the same neurological and physiological signs when they think they're feeling love. We can't be sure they're really feeling love, or that they're all feeling love in the same way. Of course, that's forgetting that we use commonality to describe what something is anyway. But I don't think anyone else knows that. And since I can't handle being incorrect, I'll hold on hopelessly to the argument that love is subjective and unprovable because it only exists in the psyche, even though various studies show a clear correlation between psychology and neurology. None of it matters anyway!"

Once again, that's a facetious interpretation. But this is the last time I will respond to you as, I would liken the experience to :headbang:

What exactly is your idea of the Scientific Method? And yes the method would teach you how to balance yourself on the bike. It only becomes instinct after contiued practice. The method can teach you that you need to position your body to the left for a left turn, or right for a right turn. This is stuff we learn through experimentation. We experiment with different ways of riding the bike to see which one is the correct way.

Here's a decent descritption of what I would consider to be the current scientific methodology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_model

You will note that all it does is falsify or corroborate hypotheses. It says absolutely nothing about teaching motor skills. Experimenting with something through trial and error of physical movements is not the scientific method. It has some similarities, but it is not the same thing.

Seeing as how millions (perhaps billions) of people learnt how to ride a bike without ever formualting a hypothesis or a prediction based on such a hypothesis, we can safely say that one can learn the knowledge of how to ride a bicycle without using the scientific method. Moreover, since we have seen that the scientific method does not address motor skills, we can also safely say that one can not learn how to ride a bike using the scientific method.

Consequently, since there are ways of knowing about the universe without using scientific methodology, it would stand to reason that any attempt to know god would be done using one of these other ways of knowing. This is also consistent with the built-in assumptions (http://web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assumptions_of_Science.htm) and limits of science:

Snipped for length

Your proposal of the scientific method is accepted. But can also be used in this case, except for one failing being that according to that method it has to be a new thing. Which, I suppose you can say riding a bike is a new thing for someone who hasn't done it. Also, a predicition and a hypothesis is pretty much the same thing. Add to the fact that your only looking at a "consequence."

Gather Data: We went over this
Hypothesis: We went over this as well.
Prediction: If I get on a bike and pedal I will be able to ride the bike.
Experiment: Get on the bike and ride.
Corroboration: I'm not sure what they mean by this. I'm assuming they mean that if the experiment corrobates the prediction then I'm not sure what exactly what your supposed to do then. If not, you form a new hypothesis and perform's 3 again. Repeat in vertum until you reach a conclusion.

No, we can't verify that you can't learn bike riding through the Scientific Method. In fact, most of us do the aforementioned Method without thinking it. Minusing the gather data step. We form a hypothesis on how to ride a bike, we test that hypothesis. the hypothesis is proven false or correct. If False, we reevaluate the hypothesis and perform another experiment to test the new hypothesis.

That is really the core of the Scientific Method, even in your definition.

well, we can ask people

We can. But that isn't an empirical test. We aren't measuring or sensing anything there. We're just asking for an opinion.

except that we can clearly test whether somebody sees the same color distinctions we do, and we (partially) know the mechanisms that cause such. how we experience things in our minds is the outcome of a set of shared biological and physical facts. minds are physical. nothing spooky happens here, we are all running on roughly the same unified biological hardware/software package, and changes to that package create observable and discoverable changes to the experience. thus unless you have a mechanism describing how we might each be experiencing things differently, our internal experiences are approximately the same.

No two neural networks are the same. I would actually be surprised if we weren't experiencing things differently - and to a rather large extent in some cases (especially in cases like emotion - where we need to use different inputs to get the same described emotion).

Even things we can actually directly measure often vary by over 100% in biological systems - and that's just in the normal levels.


Once again. You assume we only experience it through our psyche.

It's defined that way. Terms for emotions are meant to describe our psychological feelings.

Once again, you're making a very bold assumption that has evidence to the contrary.

What assumption is that? You're going to have to clarify since you have constantly attributed assumptions to me that I did not make.

Furthermore, in accordance with your analogy. It's flawed. We're not asking WHAT you're tasting but IF you are tasting. We can tell that, by the neurons, that you are tasting something.

Of course we're asking what you're tasting. We're asking if you're feeling love. We aren't just asking, "Are you feeling some emotion or other?"

Neurology is the study of the working of the brain(well technically of the nervous system, of which the brain happens to be a part of.) Now, unless your hypothesis is that our psyche can exist without a brain. Or more directly, that our psyche operate without the use of the brain at all then you would have to provide some proof to that.

Why would I have to provide proof for something I haven't suggested?

What I've said is that we cannot empirically test what is going on in the psyche. I've never suggested that we cannot empirically test what is going on in the brain. The reason that we can do one and not the other is rather simple. We can measure neurons firing. We cannot measure what effect those neurons have on a person's thoughts and emotions, because we cannot plug ourselves into their brain and perceive as they do. All we can do is ask.

Even if we had the technology, we couldn't even measure exactly which neurons were firing and fire those exact same neurons in our own brains - because we don't have the exact same neurons!

In order for love to be an untestable/unprovable experience you would have to discount all psychological experience as untestable.

Not as untestable. As impossible to empirically test.

If we did that, we could no longer produce the drugs that are meant to deal with psycholgical experiences.

Sure we can. We simply have to rely on non-empirical tests to do it. To be specific, we have to ask people what they are experiencing.

And I'll ignore the rest of your post, since it's based in this particular strawman you've built.

We can. But that isn't an empirical test. We aren't measuring or sensing anything there. We're just asking for an opinion.

=an empirical test. to be pretty means to be considered pretty by a subject (and, more likely, for this judgment to be broadly shared by subjects in the relevant context). therefore asking people if some color is pretty is gathering empirical data.

there is an empirical fact of the matter about what is pretty, considered individually and, presumably, collectively as well. i'm gonna go way out on a limb here and say that we'd find a fairly predictable distribution of 'prettiness' across large ranges of relevantly similar subjects.

Snip
"More recent theories of emotions tend to be informed by advances in empirical research. Often theories are not mutually exclusive and many researchers incorporate multiple perspectives in their work."

This is all I'm going to say.

Love and emotion was not originally defined as a psychological state. They were defined as that as research evolved. Further research may very well prove them to be something else entirely. Or it might prove a causation of the psychological state. It might prove that the conciousness exists beyond the physical body and awareness.

You've continually stated it can't be emperically tested. But as stated earlier, empirical testing includes observation and experiments. Both of which we can perform on test subjects.

As I said, we can test for love because we can test for a commonality. This does not mean we can find love. But we can certainly test for it. Emperically and otherwise.

From your statements, you imply that empirical testing is only valid with experience. But so far every definition I've found has stated "Observation or experience" or "observation or experiment."

No one's ever said that we will necessarily find a commonality, or be able to identify love, only that it is possible we can. And if we cn, then we can test for it empirically because we know the symptoms of it, which is something we can observe. But you have been stating that we absolutely cannot test love or test for love. Empirically speaking. This is your theory, whether it is correct or not remains to be seen but you refuse to concede that it is, in fact, just a theory. Nothing more.

=an empirical test.

Do you realize that, by your definition of an empirical test, there is empirical evidence for the existence of the divine?



"More recent theories of emotions tend to be informed by advances in empirical research. Often theories are not mutually exclusive and many researchers incorporate multiple perspectives in their work."

And? Like you said, we can empirically test what is going on physiologically when someone says they feel a given emotion.

We cannot, however, empirically test the emotion itself. Nothing in that quote demonstrates otherwise.

Love and emotion was not originally defined as a psychological state. They were defined as that as research evolved.

Really? So you're telling me that nobody knew about love or any other emotion until we had the equipment to measure things like neurons firing, blood pressure, and pupil dilation? Nobody defined love or any other emotion before we were actively researching it?

Love and various emotions were known and defined long before human beings even attempted such research.

You've continually stated it can't be emperically tested. But as stated earlier, empirical testing includes observation and experiments. Both of which we can perform on test subjects.

But the testing on the subjects doesn't include testing the emotions. We ask what emotion is being felt. We don't test for it.

From your statements, you imply that empirical testing is only valid with experience. But so far every definition I've found has stated "Observation or experience" or "observation or experiment."

You're using the word differently here. When I talk about experience, I'm talking about perception. You have to be able to perceive something to observe it or experiment upon it.

The problem is that we cannot perceive something going on in another's psyche. We can guess or assume that it might be similar to something we have experienced within our own, but that is not the same as actually perceiving it.

Really? So you're telling me that nobody knew about love or any other emotion until we had the equipment to measure things like neurons firing, blood pressure, and pupil dilation? Nobody defined love or any other emotion before we were actively researching it?

Love and various emotions were known and defined long before human beings even attempted such research.


No, I'm stating that psychology is a fairly modern creation, emotions and love was defined long before such things were tested or theorized. We understand emotion as a psychological experience because we can define it as beyond a physical experience. Neurology is still a fairly new study in and of itself, further branches might reveal it to be the source of all psychological experience. Now... there are certain studies that have shown correlations between psychological experience and neurological conditions. All I'm saying is we cannot definitively say we cannot test for love until we learn more about the human mind.


You're using the word differently here. When I talk about experience, I'm talking about perception. You have to be able to perceive something to observe it or experiment upon it.

The problem is that we cannot perceive something going on in another's psyche. We can guess or assume that it might be similar to something we have experienced within our own, but that is not the same as actually perceiving it.

Then that's merely an understanding. I conced that I cannot state, indefinetly that we can prove the presence of love at this juncture. But I do believe that we may be able to do so at some point in the future.

No, I'm stating that psychology is a fairly modern creation, emotions and love was defined long before such things were tested or theorized.

But psychological experience is not new at all. The advent of a discipline to study that experience did not create it.

We understand emotion as a psychological experience because we can define it as beyond a physical experience.

We understand emotion as a psychological experience because it is defined that way. Before we used the word "psychology", we still understood that emotion was what we were feeling, rather than what our bodies were doing.

This does not mean, of course, that physical processes do not cause emotion. It just means that the emotion itself exists within the psychological experience.

Then that's merely an understanding. I conced that I cannot state, indefinetly that we can prove the presence of love at this juncture. But I do believe that we may be able to do so at some point in the future.

How do you think we'll get around the problem of being unable to share perception with another?

Do you realize that, by your definition of an empirical test, there is empirical evidence for the existence of the divine?

no, there isn't. there is empirical evidence for belief in the divine (though, of course, there certainly could be empirical evidence of the divine, there just isn't). the divine allegedly has existence outside of the experience of subjects, unlike, for example, my feeling pain.

you are confusing empirical with the objective/subjective distinction. but the actual distinction with empirical is non-empirical; like a priori reasoning or revelation or whatever. if a thing is either observable or has observable consequences, it is able to be put through empirical testing.

besides, subjective is a confused term anyway, since there are clearly two distinct types of subjectivity - things that are idiosyncratic and internal ("funny to me"), and things that are experienced by subjects but partake in objectivity, things which people could be wrong about ("this thing is blue").

But psychological experience is not new at all. The advent of a discipline to study that experience did not create it.



We understand emotion as a psychological experience because it is defined that way. Before we used the word "psychology", we still understood that emotion was what we were feeling, rather than what our bodies were doing.

This does not mean, of course, that physical processes do not cause emotion. It just means that the emotion itself exists within the psychological experience.



How do you think we'll get around the problem of being unable to share perception with another?

Actually, we didn't understand much way back in the day about emotions. We didn't even know what feelings were, let alone what caused them. We used to believe that a fat baby shot us in the ass with arrows and created love.

We have since advanced past to that stage. We know know that love is a phenomna that takes place inside ourself. However, there is no saying that is not a certainty, that is only a common understanding based on the information we have thus far. We have only just recently been able to study the mind on more then a purely theoretical basis. Until we have studied the mind we can't desicively say that emotion is a psychological experience, that is just our best understanding of it at a current state. We have not come to the end of our study of human beings and what makes us act and behave in the ways we do.

Your argument is moot until you can conclusively prove that love is not a neurological phenomnon that has a psychological symptom, rather then the reverse. And you can't prove that until we have finished mapping out the neurological processes.

You argue as if what you state is fact. It is not. I have stated I have a theory, I have stated that my theory can be proved or disproved based on continued study. You also have a theory, but you argue it as a certainty. This is a flaw. I have conceded the point that I cannot, at this juncture test for love until I go out and perform some serious tests.

In the words of the Boondocks: "The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence."

no, there isn't. there is empirical evidence for belief in the divine (though, of course, there certainly could be empirical evidence of the divine, there just isn't).

In that case, asking someone if they feel love is only empirical evidence for their belief that they feel love. It is not empirical evidence for the existence of the actual emotion or for them feeling it.

In other words, you're measuring what they say, not what they are actually experiencing.

you are confusing empirical with the objective/subjective distinction. but the actual distinction with empirical is non-empirical; like a priori reasoning or revelation or whatever. if a thing is either observable or has observable consequences, it is able to be put through empirical testing.

If a thing is not observable, we cannot be know if any measured consequences come from that thing. Again, we're back to the problem of measuring consequences without knowing what the input is.

If we get people to put food in their mouths and then measure their neurological response, but only ask them what food they ate instead of observing it, we cannot say that we have empirically tested the taste of bread. Our subjects may or may not have been eating bread.


Actually, we didn't understand much way back in the day about emotions. We didn't even know what feelings were, let alone what caused them. We used to believe that a fat baby shot us in the ass with arrows and created love.

Of course we knew what feelings were. That's how we defined them. Did we have any understanding of possible physical causes for them? No, but we don't need to know or even posit the physical causes for something in order to define the psychological experience. Whether we believe in a love god or posit that some combination of hormones creates the emotion, the emotion itself is still the psychological experience.

Meanwhile, I don't think anyone ever actually believed that a fat baby shot them in the ass to create love. The cupid image is really a parody of the Greek and Roman conceptions of a love god - their idea of a force in the world that could cause such things.

Interestingly enough, the Greeks had at least 5 or 6 different words that all translate into "love" in English. They defined love in different forms much more clearly than we do. But, just as we do, they were talking about something they actually experienced internally, whatever they thought the cause may be.

Your argument is moot until you can conclusively prove that love is not a neurological phenomnon that has a psychological symptom, rather then the reverse. And you can't prove that until we have finished mapping out the neurological processes.

Once again, it is defined that way. Love is defined as the psychological experience. I have no doubt that it is stored and expressed in some way neurologically, but the neurological process is not the emotion. It is the cause of the emotion.

You are trying to redefine the word so that you can make your argument. We generally refer to that as circular logic. What you're basically saying is, "If we define love as these physiological measures, instead of defining it by our psychological experience, we can then measure it." It's like saying, "If we used the word lizard to refer to birds, lizards would be warm-blooded."

You argue as if what you state is fact. It is not. I have stated I have a theory, I have stated that my theory can be proved or disproved based on continued study. You also have a theory, but you argue it as a certainty. This is a flaw. I have conceded the point that I cannot, at this juncture test for love until I go out and perform some serious tests.

Once again, you need to look up the word theory. Theory and definition are not the same thing. I am not stating a theory. I am using the definition of emotion and love, while you are trying to redefine them in such a way as to be able to empirically measure them.

You seem to think I'm stating some sort of theory that there are no physical causes or implications of an emotion. I'm not. But neither those causes nor any physical manifestations of that emotion are the emotion itself - by definition.

ok, so the two proposed chains of causation are
p -> n -> e
p -> e -> n

(a third is that the n and e are independent of each other with p as a common cause for both, e <- p -> n)

sounds to me like you need to block the neurological activity and see what happens. if you block it and the experience still occurs, then the pheromones would appear to be causing it directly, and the neurological activity is just an epiphenomena. and if it doesn't, then it would appear that the neurological activity is causally prior to the experience.

You could assume so, of course, but no causal link would be established. All that would be established by such an experiment is that the experience and the neurological activity are strongly associated with one another, which we already knew. We don't know that A causes B just because they're strongly associated with one another. Let's say that whenever I have my cell phone, I make calls. There's a strong relationship between (A) my cell phone being present and (B) my making calls. If you take the cell phone away, I no longer make calls. Though it may be a possibility to consider, that hardly means that the cell phone causes me to make calls.

which brings us to...

here the proposed relations are something like:

c -> ~n -> ~e
~e <- c -> ~n
c -> ~e -> ~n

and here what you need is to intervene in the other way, to stimulate the neurological activity in another fashion while still having the possibly experience denying chemical present. if the experience is causally independent of or prior to the neurological activity, then it should remain absent. if the experience does show up, it looks like the first causal account is on the right track.

of course, it's trickier than this in real life, but it is totally discoverable in principle.

Actually, it's trickier in principle as well. Let's assume that we demonstrate that every time the experience is present, the neurological activity is present. Let's even go so far as to assume that we demonstrate that there is no chemical or experience causing both phenomena. Let's even go so far as to say that there is no agent interfering in the results, so there's no Observer's Paradox. Let's say that we have all the technology/tools to conduct the experiment. All the practical difficulties are gone. In principle, how do you know that the relationship between the neurological activity and the experience of love is a causal one, or even that there is a relationship at all besides their proximity to one another?

Of course we knew what feelings were. That's how we defined them. Did we have any understanding of possible physical causes for them? No, but we don't need to know or even posit the physical causes for something in order to define the psychological experience. Whether we believe in a love god or posit that some combination of hormones creates the emotion, the emotion itself is still the psychological experience.

Meanwhile, I don't think anyone ever actually believed that a fat baby shot them in the ass to create love. The cupid image is really a parody of the Greek and Roman conceptions of a love god - their idea of a force in the world that could cause such things.

Interestingly enough, the Greeks had at least 5 or 6 different words that all translate into "love" in English. They defined love in different forms much more clearly than we do. But, just as we do, they were talking about something they actually experienced internally, whatever they thought the cause may be.

For years, centuries, love was thought to be an expresssion of the soul. Not of the mind. As science has evolved, we actually believe it now to be the work of the mind and not the soul. This may, or may not, be accurate. We have no conclusive evidence of the soul, and thus cannot verify it as a viable source for anything.

My point being that, our understanding of love is only a best guess, liable to change as more information is available to us. Unless your implying that we can definitively know that love is a psychological experience.... which according to you, we cannot because love can't be tested and therefore calling it a psychological experience is a what? A theory. I have my own theory, however, and unlike your own, can actually be verified.


Once again, it is defined that way. Love is defined as the psychological experience. I have no doubt that it is stored and expressed in some way neurologically, but the neurological process is not the emotion. It is the cause of the emotion.

You are trying to redefine the word so that you can make your argument. We generally refer to that as circular logic. What you're basically saying is, "If we define love as these physiological measures, instead of defining it by our psychological experience, we can then measure it." It's like saying, "If we used the word lizard to refer to birds, lizards would be warm-blooded."


No. My argument is nothing along those lines. You repeatedly state there is no way to epirically test for love. I state to the opposite. That there is physiological and, possibly, neurological responses to this psychological stimulus. I've stated that there are ways to test for such associated signs and if we found them, then we could look for signs as indicators of love based on the commonality of the signs presented in subjects. You argued that even if there was a commonality we should just ignore it because we can't be sure that what they're expeirencing is the same thing. I simply pointed out that we define things based on a commonality. On a common understanding of what something is.

By your argument we should ignore erections because arousal is a feeling like love and any physiological correspondence is purely coincidence.

Now I'm sure you're going to argue I'm misunderstanding. So I'll ask you some simple questions. Can we correlate love to certain physiological responses? Can we observe those physiological indicators? And yes I know already how you'll answer those questions and if I don't say this you will "But we're not testing LOVE. We can't test LOVE because it's psychological experience." And to answer that argument preemptively. We don't know that love is a psychological experience. We have correlated it to emotion, we have correlated emotion to a psychological experience. But as you've argued, correlation doesn't mean anything at all. Though your understanding of how people understood love back in the day seems wholly inaccurate and largely based on what weve discovered of love after the fact.

Most likely, someone had an experience, it may have been psychological and it may not have been, we cannot say with the utmost certainty that it was. That person then went on to ponder about the experience, most likely reasonably perplexed they probably asked a friend if they had ever had the same experience. That person probably said yes, and so one or both of them probably continued on to ask others about the experience. Once he discovered a number of people shared that experience he probably identified it and gave it a name. That experience would eventually be called love. This is the most reasonable explanation I can fathom.

By opposition, your own argument, that love is a unique and unknowable experience except to the one who feels it. Which means there would never be that initial correlation between experiences. In order for love to exist as we know it now that means the people would have had to individually associate a unique and personal experience to a particular phenomnon and identify that phenomnon as love. But as I just pointed out, that would be relatively impossible as if every experience is unique and personal then one couldn't associate them with anything because they would have no commonality which makes association verydifficult if not impossible. You would almost, in fact, have to know of the phenomnon FIRST and then associate your experience to it.

We don't know what events led to the identifying and naming of the experience we call love. In order for your theory, and it is very much a theory, to be accurate, the word love would not exist without some commonality, without a correlation between one experience of love and another.


Once again, you need to look up the word theory. Theory and definition are not the same thing. I am not stating a theory. I am using the definition of emotion and love, while you are trying to redefine them in such a way as to be able to empirically measure them.

You seem to think I'm stating some sort of theory that there are no physical causes or implications of an emotion. I'm not. But neither those causes nor any physical manifestations of that emotion are the emotion itself - by definition.

Main Entry: emo·tion
Pronunciation: \i-ˈmō-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from emouvoir to stir up, from Old French esmovoir, from Latin emovēre to remove, displace, from e- + movēre to move
Date: 1579
1 aobsolete : disturbance b: excitement
2 a: the affective aspect of consciousness : feeling b: a state of feeling c: a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body

The Merriam-Webster's definition of emotion. An official dictionary and generally accepted source. I have always been operating on a definition and understanding of love, not attempting to redefine it only to FURTHER define it. There is a difference.

You are very much arguing that an emotion cannot be identified by it's physiological correspondents. This is a theory. Not a fact. In the given definition it states that there are often physicall corrospondence with emotions. Meaning that we can in fact eperically test for love. If there are signs that are accepted by the majority of the world as part of love then we can identify and observe those signs. And as I've stated, observation is a viable empirical method of testing.

Furthermore, in the definition it states that it is a mental reaction. A reaction of or pertaining to the mind that is experienced subjectively. But there is a study that in fact studies mental reactions which is an officially accepted cause of the subjective sensations. This study happens to be a branch of neurology. As I've said, I have no prove that my theory is accurate, but my theory can be proved or disproved. You have a theory. You can argue that it is the definition of emotion. But as you can tell, your definition and mine vary.

We don't understand love at all, or emotion, we accept that emotions our a psychological experience because that is our best understanding of it. That does not make it a fact or even accurate.

You could assume so, of course, but no causal link would be established. All that would be established by such an experiment is that the experience and the neurological activity are strongly associated with one another, which we already knew. We don't know that A causes B just because they're strongly associated with one another. Let's say that whenever I have my cell phone, I make calls. There's a strong relationship between (A) my cell phone being present and (B) my making calls. If you take the cell phone away, I no longer make calls. Though it may be a possibility to consider, that hardly means that the cell phone causes me to make calls.


That's not quite an accurate desciption. If love is in fact the calls you make and the neurological activity is the phone. Then by taking the phone away we can show that you don't make calls without a phone. This is a commonality that shows a direct link between your having a phone and your ability to make a call.


Actually, it's trickier in principle as well. Let's assume that we demonstrate that every time the experience is present, the neurological activity is present. Let's even go so far as to assume that we demonstrate that there is no chemical or experience causing both phenomena. Let's even go so far as to say that there is no agent interfering in the results, so there's no Observer's Paradox. Let's say that we have all the technology/tools to conduct the experiment. All the practical difficulties are gone. In principle, how do you know that the relationship between the neurological activity and the experience of love is a causal one, or even that there is a relationship at all besides their proximity to one another?

If you look at the above ecplanation it more or less answers this question. We know that you don't make calls without your cell phone, this shows a casual relationship in and itself. Now, if we use the same process and say that you absolutely make a call. Maybe to a hospital, or to your family because you heard someone died, or to some hot chick who gave you her number. This is a stimulus for you to make a phone call. If you don't it could imply one of two things, either the stimulus failed, or equally probable that you can't make a call without using a phone.

However, if you can still make calls without the use of a phone then that would imply that the relationship is a coincidental one instead of a substantial one.

Edit: I would also like to state this because there seems to be some confusion. WE ARE NOT TESTING LOVE! There is simply not enough known about it to test it. But we can TEST for love in the same way we test for many other things. By looking for the symptoms of love. The problem is finding the symptoms of love. Which we can in fact do.

For years, centuries, love was thought to be an expresssion of the soul. Not of the mind.

Again, you're talking about mechanism, not definition.

It has been defined by the feeling it invokes internally, regardless of what people thought the mechanism was.

My point being that, our understanding of love is only a best guess, liable to change as more information is available to us.

Understanding and definition are two different things.

Unless your implying that we can definitively know that love is a psychological experience....

Of course we can. It's defined that way and we experience it that way.

No. My argument is nothing along those lines. You repeatedly state there is no way to epirically test for love. I state to the opposite.

And, to do so, you redefine love.

Now I'm sure you're going to argue I'm misunderstanding. So I'll ask you some simple questions. Can we correlate love to certain physiological responses?

We can correlate certain physiological responses to people saying that they feel love.

We cannot directly correlate it to love itself.

We don't know that love is a psychological experience. We have correlated it to emotion, we have correlated emotion to a psychological experience.

Not correlated. We have defined both love and emotion by our psychological experiences.

By opposition, your own argument, that love is a unique and unknowable experience except to the one who feels it. Which means there would never be that initial correlation between experiences.

Hardly.

You seem to think of language as an objective medium. For the most part, it isn't. Individuals place different connotations upon different words. We have different understandings of the same word. Depending on what language you are working in, there may be words for concepts that aren't even defined at all in another language.


Main Entry: emo·tion
Pronunciation: \i-ˈmō-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from emouvoir to stir up, from Old French esmovoir, from Latin emovēre to remove, displace, from e- + movēre to move
Date: 1579
1 aobsolete : disturbance b: excitement
2 a: the affective aspect of consciousness : feeling b: a state of feeling c: a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body

The Merriam-Webster's definition of emotion. An official dictionary and generally accepted source. I have always been operating on a definition and understanding of love, not attempting to redefine it only to FURTHER define it. There is a difference.

Your definitions supports what I have been saying. It places emotion within the consciousness. In other words, as a psychological experience. It point-blank states that emotion is a subjective experience - a feeling.

It also specifically states that emotion is generally accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes, not defined by them.

You are very much arguing that an emotion cannot be identified by it's physiological correspondents. This is a theory. Not a fact. In the given definition it states that there are often physicall corrospondence with emotions. Meaning that we can in fact eperically test for love.

....except for the problem of subjective experience. Even if two people are exhibiting the same physiological markers, we don't know if they are feeling[ the same thing. It is that feeling we would have to empirically test in order to empirically test emotion.

Again, we're back to the food example. If we have people put a food in their mouth, but we don't regulate what that food is, we cannot then say that the neurons lighting up are an empirical measurement of the taste of bread. We don't know if they were all eating the same bread - or even if they were eating bread at all.

Furthermore, in the definition it states that it is a mental reaction. A reaction of or pertaining to the mind that is experienced subjectively. But there is a study that in fact studies mental reactions which is an officially accepted cause of the subjective sensations. This study happens to be a branch of neurology. As I've said, I have no prove that my theory is accurate, but my theory can be proved or disproved. You have a theory. You can argue that it is the definition of emotion. But as you can tell, your definition and mine vary.

The definition that you just quoted is exactly what I have been saying. As you say, in the definition it states that it is a mental reaction. That is precisely what I have been arguing.

And yes, there are branches of study that examine such things. It doesn't mean that they use empirical tests to measure those things. Instead, they make untestable assumptions and use empirical tests to measure physiology.

Of course we can. It's defined that way and we experience it that way.


Not correlated. We have defined both love and emotion by our psychological experiences.


No. We correlated a sensation to a psychological experience. We don't know what the sensation is, or what creates it. The sensation itself is what love is for it is that sensation that love was defined as. We believe that sensation to be psychological in nature. We don't, in fact, know it is psychological, it is an accepted belief. There's been a lot of accepted beliefs that have been proven false over time.




....except for the problem of subjective experience. Even if two people are exhibiting the same physiological markers, we don't know if they are feeling[ the same thing. It is that feeling we would have to empirically test in order to empirically test emotion.

Again, we're back to the food example. If we have people put a food in their mouth, but we don't regulate what that food is, we cannot then say that the neurons lighting up are an empirical measurement of the taste of bread. We don't know if they were all eating the same bread - or even if they were eating bread at all.


By your own arguments, we can't even correlate a feeling to a feeling. Which means this psychological experience that you keep claiming is love... isn't love at all... After all, love is relative, and thus there is no psychological experience that is love. There's a bunch of experiences that people feel internally that they identify as love. So the whole love thing is a moot point. I mean, who cares if you "love" someone, it's not important. Obviously, because love doesn't actually MEAN anything. It's just a concept that we created to explain away certain sensations. Love is in fact, a delusion. A fallacy. Something that doesn't exist. Nobody can BE in love. Because there's no LOVE.

We can not know someone loves us, as was the statement that started this argument, and we can't know if we are in love. Of course, we can't be in love because love is only a concept and not a real thing.

So you're right. We can't test for love, because we cannot test for the presence of a concept. You are most definetly correct. My bad. You see, I actually believed love was an actual thing.... I appologize.

*snip*

You clearly aren't even trying to continue this conversation in a rational manner. I demonstrated that the definition you brought up is exactly the one I've been using, and you completely skipped that so that you could rant.

You clearly aren't even trying to continue this conversation in a rational manner. I demonstrated that the definition you brought up is exactly the one I've been using, and you completely skipped that so that you could rant.

I didn't skip it, I simply didn't add it to my response. I didn't see adding an additional quote when my response was a a carry over from the last point I had made and was already half way completed.

My response is largely to your argument. I already know the definition, I also know your interpretation of that definition, there seemed really no point in adding it again. You believe mental reaction means psychological, I disagree, but that is an argument of semantics and we could argue that all day. So I instead adressed your argument itself.

Your argument, as stated in one of your firsts post is that we can't empirically test for love because we can't tell what they feel. And you are most assuredly correct on that. However, if we can't identify what they feel then we can't actually identify that they FEEL anything. So love actually doesn't mean anything at all. It's just an interpretation of a psychological experience, not even the same psychological expereince, that we identify as the concept that we call love. Therefore, love doesn't actually have any meaning whatsoever and thus you can't KNOW someone loves you, you can't know that you're in love. You can't KNOW love at all.

You can believe you are in love, you can believe someone loves you, but as love is just a concept none of that even matters.

As for the rest, you're falling into the trap of thinking that anything we cannot empirically measure is meaningless or useless. I don't think that's true. We have to recognize any measures we use for such things as less reliable - especially in a scientific sense - than empirical measures, but that doesn't mean we can make no use of them at all.

It has nothing to do with empirical testing or the ability to perform it and everything to do with their being able to even identify love. There is no "psychological experience" that is love. Or at least no experience we can clearly define or identify as being love.

After all, we can't test if they're experiencing the same thing. Right? And since we can't test whether or not they are experiencing the same thing, then we can't identify what love is. Which means love is purely a concept, an interpretation, of a feeling we experience.

My response is largely to your argument. I already know the definition, I also know your interpretation of that definition, there seemed really no point in adding it again. You believe mental reaction means psychological, I disagree, but that is an argument of semantics and we could argue that all day. So I instead adressed your argument itself.

(a) Of course mental reaction means psychological. They are both words to describe that which happens within the consciousness.

(b) You can't address my argument when trying to use different definitions.

Your argument, as stated in one of your firsts post is that we can't empirically test for love because we can't tell what they feel. And you are most assuredly correct on that.

Thank you. Sounds like the end of the argument to me.


As for the rest, you're falling into the trap of thinking that anything we cannot empirically measure is meaningless or useless. I don't think that's true. We have to recognize any measures we use for such things as less reliable - especially in a scientific sense - than empirical measures, but that doesn't mean we can make no use of them at all.

It has nothing to do with empirical testing or the ability to perform it and everything to do with their being able to even identify love. There is no "psychological experience" that is love. Or at least no experience we can clearly define or identify as being love.

Most definitions aren't completely clear. We can't clearly define most emotions. For the most part, they come down to circular definitions. But that doesn't mean they are a useless concept. There are a lot of things we can't clearly define.

But we can and do experience emotion. We know what we are feeling, whether we can clearly explain it to another or not. We self-identify our emotions.

After all, we can't test if they're experiencing the same thing. Right? And since we can't test whether or not they are experiencing the same thing, then we can't identify what love is. Which means love is purely a concept, an interpretation, of a feeling we experience.

To each of us (well, anyone who has felt it), love is an actual experience. As a more universal definition, it is a concept built on the assumption of similar experiences.

But that doesn't make it useless. Much the way humans interact with each other is built upon such concepts - upon the assumption of shared or similar experience.

You could assume so, of course, but no causal link would be established. All that would be established by such an experiment is that the experience and the neurological activity are strongly associated with one another, which we already knew. We don't know that A causes B just because they're strongly associated with one another. Let's say that whenever I have my cell phone, I make calls. There's a strong relationship between (A) my cell phone being present and (B) my making calls. If you take the cell phone away, I no longer make calls. Though it may be a possibility to consider, that hardly means that the cell phone causes me to make calls.

except that in your story, having your phone is causal. the effect, your making calls, just has at least one additional cause (your desire to make calls). you need both to get the effect.

In principle, how do you know that the relationship between the neurological activity and the experience of love is a causal one, or even that there is a relationship at all besides their proximity to one another?

proximity is a relationship, and the manipulation demonstrates the causality - what causes what is made visible by the fact that we can manipulate one thing and thereby manipulate something else, whereas if they were not so linked, the manipulation of the one would not change the other. it seems to me that the only way to escape that is to deny the existence of causation or our ability to ever see it at all. a possibility, sure, but not one i'll really entertain seriously.