LadyMilla Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 My question, then, to marharth and LadyMilla: why are you so bent on ruining one of life's greatest mysteries? Some people quite like the unexplained emotional whirlwind that is Love...why are you determined to take that away from them? If everything HAS to be explainable by science...then explain why a tornado can completely obliterate one house and leave the house next door (as in, 30 feet away, over the fence) untouched. Or was that house spared by poltergeists? (Remember, marharth: it was YOU who said that if it cannot be explained by science it is paranormal.) Sometimes life leaves us mysteries we cannot solve. Sometimes it's best to let those mysteries be. I think you failed to understand my message - my point was NOT that everything HAS to be explained by science, my point was simply to refute the claim that love as an emotion *cannot* be and will *never* be explained by science, and also to refute the myth that love is something that exists outside of your brain. Tell me, is the fact that our emotions exist within our brain makes them less wonderful? Isn't it a wonder itself that we, humans evolved into beings that experience such emotions like love, affection, hate and amazement? Isn't it wonderful in itself that we have the perception of beauty? As to your example, you obviously know how steep the pressure difference produced by the tornado can be, even within a short distance. Nature does not create mysteries. We create them due to our limited understanding of the reality that lies beyond our perceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 My question, then, to marharth and LadyMilla: why are you so bent on ruining one of life's greatest mysteries? Some people quite like the unexplained emotional whirlwind that is Love...why are you determined to take that away from them? If everything HAS to be explainable by science...then explain why a tornado can completely obliterate one house and leave the house next door (as in, 30 feet away, over the fence) untouched. Or was that house spared by poltergeists? (Remember, marharth: it was YOU who said that if it cannot be explained by science it is paranormal.) Sometimes life leaves us mysteries we cannot solve. Sometimes it's best to let those mysteries be. It's been my experience that those who continually trumpet one thing to the exclusion of everything only else shows their own limitations. Reason over experience means they have a shallow well to draw from. Not meaning that they are stupid, just limited in their scope. I would like to thank them for incessantly trying to throw cold water on the rest of us. If they meant to ruin the spirit of the thread and push every other poster away, then I think they have succeeded. Thank you very much for that. I hope someone returns the favor when they become attracted to someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyMilla Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 It's been my experience that those who continually trumpet one thing to the exclusion of everything only else shows their own limitations. I think it was you who EXCLUDED the possibility of love being explained by science. It's very hypocritical to accuse others of a crime that you commit yourself. Reason over experience means they have a shallow well to draw from. Not meaning that they are stupid, just limited in their scope. If you dare not venture beyond your experience, it is you who are limited in your scope. You stop to marvel at the mystery but you are too afraid to scratch its surface and peek inside. It is HIGHLY hypocritical from somebody who wrote in a now locked thread: "Is the belief and faith in an ideal so sacred that questions about it should never be raised? ". Is your belief in 'love' and 'emotion' so sacred that questions about it should never be raised? One more thing:I don't think it was a good choice to post a topic about 'Love' in the Debates forum. I read your first post and it was actually a compelling description of your personal experience and your beliefs about love. But experience so personal as love is something you should not have exposed to a place where the definition of debate implies the use of logic and reason, or at least you should have indicated that this is a discussion and not a debate, and your intention was to share our views about the experience that is love. Aurielius and Grannywils quoted poetry and they did rightfully so because poetry comes the closest to 'replicate' the experience (or at least give you something that you recognize and say 'yes, the poet speaks about something I feel and experience myself - the poet's words are true because my experience tells me the same.'.). If you had asked the question: is love something that is worth living for, I would have replied without hesitation that yes, it is. If you had asked the question: should science leave this mystery untouched by its cold logic and reasoning? I would have told you: yes. But you and Sync182 posted a few statements like love does not require proof and love cannot be explained by science. I admit my mind is a bit too inquisitive sometimes and if there is one thing that is sure to set it in motion, it is a statement where the person failed to provide proof. However, I can even agree with Sync182: love does not require proof because my own personal experience confirms its existence and power. I can even agree with you that the experience of love cannot be described by mathematical functions, there is no love-o-meter that tells me that the intensity of my love is now 134 degree Lovenheit (probably marharth would argue that one day they might just invent such a thing). However, love is not only an experience. You can discuss its other aspects: we can talk about love as a phylosophycal concept and love as a function of our brain where our emotions are born. Science has the bad (or good) habit of asking impolite questions about things we consider sacred, tabu or obvious. And there is a risk that sometime in the future a very curious scientist whose priorities start and end within the realm of all things rational will do us a disservice and unravel the mystery of the bio-electro-chemical basis of our emotions. Sync182 asked if me and marharth believed that there was a rational/logical explanation for everything. I cannot speak for marharth, but my answer is: I do not know if there is a rational explanation for everything. And for this reason, I do not feel qualified to declare something ex cathedra as scientifically unreasearchable/inexplicable. There are things for which I need no rational explanation but the fact that I don't need an explanation does not mean a rational explanation is fully out of question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 LadyMilla, I will have to admit that you got my attention with your last post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) What LadyMilla said pretty much. I am not auguring that we should completely prove what love is, I am auguring that love is scientific and happens within the brain. "If everything HAS to be explainable by science...then explain why a tornado can completely obliterate one house and leave the house next door (as in, 30 feet away, over the fence) untouched. Or was that house spared by poltergeists? (Remember, marharth: it was YOU who said that if it cannot be explained by science it is paranormal.)" Some houses have stronger foundation even if they are right by each other. Poltergeists have no proof of existence. Once again, even if those things were paranormal it doesn't mean they can't be explained by science at a later date. Look back at history and see what humans thought about weather and the earth in general. People used to not be able to explain illnesses and weather, that does not mean they were never explained later on by science. The whole reason against experience is a debate for another topic really. I don't really want to make that topic so someone else can if they want. EDIT: Also @granny can you explain? Hard to tell if that was a positive response or not. Edited August 2, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 It was a positive response directed at LadyMilla, who knows how to present a position with reasoning and facts. I appreciate her style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 It's been my experience that those who continually trumpet one thing to the exclusion of everything only else shows their own limitations. I think it was you who EXCLUDED the possibility of love being explained by science. It's very hypocritical to accuse others of a crime that you commit yourself. Reason over experience means they have a shallow well to draw from. Not meaning that they are stupid, just limited in their scope. If you dare not venture beyond your experience, it is you who are limited in your scope. You stop to marvel at the mystery but you are too afraid to scratch its surface and peek inside. It is HIGHLY hypocritical from somebody who wrote in a now locked thread: "Is the belief and faith in an ideal so sacred that questions about it should never be raised? ". Is your belief in 'love' and 'emotion' so sacred that questions about it should never be raised? You are the one trumpeting logic as the sole tool to get to your findings and science the sole explanation for love. Please don't try to spin this, when everybody can read you responses here. I am not the one that hails science as the end all and tell all. Which is goes right along with the statement that you quoted from the Now closed topic. Nice try anyway.One more thing:I don't think it was a good choice to post a topic about 'Love' in the Debates forum. I read your first post and it was actually a compelling description of your personal experience and your beliefs about love. But experience so personal as love is something you should not have exposed to a place where the definition of debate implies the use of logic and reason, or at least you should have indicated that this is a discussion and not a debate, and your intention was to share our views about the experience that is love. Aurielius and Grannywils quoted poetry and they did rightfully so because poetry comes the closest to 'replicate' the experience (or at least give you something that you recognize and say 'yes, the poet speaks about something I feel and experience myself - the poet's words are true because my experience tells me the same.'.). If you had asked the question: is love something that is worth living for, I would have replied without hesitation that yes, it is. If you had asked the question: should science leave this mystery untouched by its cold logic and reasoning? I would have told you: yes. May post was my ideas behind how love works, not wither it is a chemical response that has nothing to do with any external stimulus. You guys tried to turn a very beautiful thing into the equivalent of culture growing in a petri dish. This is why I posted my last post. But you and Sync182 posted a few statements like love does not require proof and love cannot be explained by science. I admit my mind is a bit too inquisitive sometimes and if there is one thing that is sure to set it in motion, it is a statement where the person failed to provide proof. However, I can even agree with Sync182: love does not require proof because my own personal experience confirms its existence and power. I can even agree with you that the experience of love cannot be described by mathematical functions, there is no love-o-meter that tells me that the intensity of my love is now 134 degree Lovenheit (probably marharth would argue that one day they might just invent such a thing). However, love is not only an experience. You can discuss its other aspects: we can talk about love as a phylosophycal concept and love as a function of our brain where our emotions are born. Science has the bad (or good) habit of asking impolite questions about things we consider sacred, tabu or obvious. And there is a risk that sometime in the future a very curious scientist whose priorities start and end within the realm of all things rational will do us a disservice and unravel the mystery of the bio-electro-chemical basis of our emotions. Sync182 asked if me and marharth believed that there was a rational/logical explanation for everything. I cannot speak for marharth, but my answer is: I do not know if there is a rational explanation for everything. And for this reason, I do not feel qualified to declare something ex cathedra as scientifically unreasearchable/inexplicable. There are things for which I need no rational explanation but the fact that I don't need an explanation does not mean a rational explanation is fully out of question. My post was my ideas behind how love works, not wither it is a chemical response that has nothing to do with any external stimulus. You guys tried to turn a very beautiful thing into the equivalent of culture growing in a petri dish. This is why I posted my last post. I didn't say that science couldn't answer some answers, just that It could not answer where it initailzed. I said there needs to be a target of your love, before there is a reaction to it, and I still do. I repeat myself, If love begins and ends in the brain, then scientist could very well artificially introduce the same chemicals into the brain, while showing the individual a picture of animal excrement and the person would fall in love with it. Love has to have a target for love to begin. The chemicals introduced into the brain after that is the reaction to love, not it's cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) I don't care if I turn something beautiful into something that's not, that's how the world works and sometimes the truth hurts. Besides I am not even doing that. I still feel love, and saying that it is caused by science doesn't make it any less beautiful in my eyes. The reason scientists can simulate love is because WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND IT YET... Much like the rest of the brain. Edited August 2, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keanumoreira Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND IT YET... Much like the rest of the brain. Exactly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 I don't care if I turn something beautiful into something that's not, that's how the world works and sometimes the truth hurts. Besides I am not even doing that. I still feel love, and saying that it is caused by science doesn't make it any less beautiful in my eyes. The reason scientists can simulate love is because WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND IT YET... Much like the rest of the brain. If we don't fully understand the brain, how the heck can you come up with what you call the truth. Sounds more like your version of the truth. Your truth doesn't hurt me, it amuses me just how dark and cold you wish the truth to be. Maybe you should confront that instead of insisting I embrace your interpretation of reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now