01 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo how do you know it exists? How can you even talk about it meaningfully whilst simultaneously claiming it follows no discernable pattern and cannot be defined? How do you even know that we are talking about the same thing?
if you cannot, it can either be we have not found any yet or none can be found ever because what we call love is so broad and complex that it can't be defined.
i believe the latter.
why don't all people like van gogh? can you explain that scientifically?
I personally have not done any experiments along those lines, but yes, it can be explained scientifically.
you can't say with a straight face that there are laws governing love among humans when to every affirmation about love, there are countless counter examples.
I assure you I am not joking. Your claim that love follows no laws and it completely undefinable is simply nonsense. The very fact that it has a word assigned to it 'love' and appears in dictionaries tells us that it is at a bare minimum a concept and must have some identifying attributes.
what is so scientific about something that only occurs half the time as predicted?
Is that perhaps a scientific observation? If not, where did you get that statistic? How do you know its not only 1% of the time as predicted? Who makes the predictions? Based on what models?
02 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThat is funny since science has proved through the use of DNA that the evidence used to prove evolution true had been faked. Trouble in the Evolution camp.
I had the opposite experience. The more I read the Bible, the more I became convinced that much of it was exaggerated, or untrue. Whereas, the more I have read about evolution, the more I have become convinced that it is correct.
http://goo.gl/6ewYU
Originally posted by cashthetrashI noticed in your reference that the first point as stated below:
That is funny since science has proved through the use of DNA that the evidence used to prove evolution true had been faked. Trouble in the Evolution camp.
http://goo.gl/6ewYU
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong.
...was restated as a strawman to suggest that no errors ever got through, which would mean no mutations.
The evolutionists can never stick with the facts they do not like. They wish to explain away this built in error correction process in DNA replication.
They are blind to the fact that since evolution requires errors to introduce mutations, that the DNA replication process itself is designed to fight against evolution.
The Intelligent Designer did not intend to use evolution to produce the varieties of living organism or else He would have not made these error checking and correcting mechanisms to prevent mutations, which evolutionists claim is needed for evolution.
Some Christians say God might have used evolution in creating living organisms. I am disappointed that professing Christian can be this stupid. This fact of error detection and correction obviously proves that God had no intention of using this so-called evolution to do anything. Mutations and disease are obviously a result of the fall of man and not by design of God.
02 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo how do you know it exists?
So how do you know it exists? How can you even talk about it meaningfully whilst simultaneously claiming it follows no discernable pattern and cannot be defined? How do you even know that we are talking about the same thing?
[b]why don't all people like van gogh? can you explain that scientifically?
I personally have not done any experiments along ...[text shortened]... know its not only 1% of the time as predicted? Who makes the predictions? Based on what models?[/b]
it exists because we say it does. you do not reach a number after which you are in love. you simply decide you are.
"I personally have not done any experiments along those lines, but yes, it can be explained scientifically."
you have no idea how it can be explained, you do not have a scientific experiment, but you claim it can be explained scientifically. how about we say it cannot be explained scientifically until someone actually does it. and you link to it.
"The very fact that it has a word assigned to it 'love' and appears in dictionaries tells us that it is at a bare minimum a concept and must have some identifying attributes."
having a word means nothing. if that word encompases different concepts that have only a few common characteristics, if it is experienced differently between individuals, all these point to the fact that it isn't well enough defined. there is love of chocolate, of parents, of music, of siblings, of life partners. we call all these different concepts love.
if i fall from a sky scrapper, i accelerate at the same rate as you do. gravity is not subjective.
"Is that perhaps a scientific observation? If not, where did you get that statistic?"
i was making a point. i didn't think you wouldn't get it. 50% is not important, what is important is that it is not 100%. if a physical law is "broken", scientists understand the conditions and know that next time the experiment is repeated, under the same conditions, it will have the same outcome. how would you define gravity if some people could just decide at any point they are or not affected by it? how can you call it a law if i can decide my g=5,7m/s/s? of if earth suddenly decides he is not "in gravity" with the sun anymore because it (earth) doesn't like how the sun is "in gravity" with jupiter, and so it decides to just wonder the milky way, heart broken, to find another sun?
02 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut why do you say it does? Based on what do you decide? You say it is undefinable, unpredictable, follows no pattern, etc. Do you just arbitrarily one day say your are in love, then arbitrarily some other day say that you are not in love?
it exists because we say it does. you do not reach a number after which you are in love. you simply decide you are.
Clearly your understanding of love differs substantially from mine. In fact, I have no idea what you are referring to when you say 'love' and apparently you don't know either.
you have no idea how it can be explained,
What makes you think that? I have a very good idea how it can be explained: differences in people brains. Its kind of obvious.
how about we say it cannot be explained scientifically until someone actually does it. and you link to it.
Why on earth would we say that? On what grounds? Sorry, but you can't have it your way just because you want it your way. Justify the claim. (yes, its you making the extraordinary claim not I, so the burden of proof is on you).
having a word means nothing. if that word encompases different concepts that have only a few common characteristics,
So you admit common characteristics? What are they?
if it is experienced differently between individuals, all these point to the fact that it isn't well enough defined.
Well enough for what?
there is love of chocolate, of parents, of music, of siblings, of life partners. we call all these different concepts love.
And in some instances we even give them special terms 'romantic love' and so on.
if i fall from a sky scrapper, i accelerate at the same rate as you do. gravity is not subjective.
How is that relevant? Are you saying that because science can study gravity and love differs from gravity therefore science can't study love? Do you realise what a ridiculous argument that is?
i was making a point. i didn't think you wouldn't get it. 50% is not important, what is important is that it is not 100%.
And you obviously didn't get my point either. If a statistic exists, then it surely could be determined by science? Moreover you earlier claimed that it did not follow any patterns whatsoever, so when you gave a statistic, you contradicted your earlier claim.
if a physical law is "broken", scientists understand the conditions and know that next time the experiment is repeated, under the same conditions, it will have the same outcome. how would you define gravity if some people could just decide at any point they are or not affected by it? how can you call it a law if i can decide my g=5,7m/s/s? of if earth suddenly decides he is not "in gravity" with the sun anymore because it (earth) doesn't like how the sun is "in gravity" with jupiter, and so it decides to just wonder the milky way, heart broken, to find another sun?
All I can say is you are not making any sense whatsoever. You seem to be saying that since the gravity on earth is of a different strength from gravity on Jupiter therefore science cannot be used to study it. Or do you not really know what you are saying?
02 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadBased on what do you decide?
But why do you say it does? Based on what do you decide? You say it is undefinable, unpredictable, follows no pattern, etc. Do you just arbitrarily one day say your are in love, then arbitrarily some other day say that you are not in love?
Clearly your understanding of love differs substantially from mine. In fact, I have no idea what you are referring t ...[text shortened]... ter therefore science cannot be used to study it. Or do you not really know what you are saying?
exactly
Do you just arbitrarily one day say your are in love
yes
then arbitrarily some other day say that you are not in love?
yes, it is possible. you say you are not in love any more because of a variety of reasons. some may find themselves out of love because of the other's infidelity. others may simply drift out of love after a period of time because they are no longer surprised.
"Clearly your understanding of love differs substantially from mine. In fact, I have no idea what you are referring to when you say 'love' and apparently you don't know either"
i have no idea what your definition of love is. you have dodged the issue constantly. you only claim there is one and it can be scientifically described and proven. yet you have no idea about a way to do that.
"differences in people brains. Its kind of obvious."
what differences? we all have different brains. yet there are many with the same notion of love. what difference accounts for what kind of love? are you saying that the love for van gogh can be determined by a brain scan? that you must have an identical lump of neurons somewhere in the brain (or scattered in numerous places) like every other human in the world who likes van gogh?
and most importantly, do you have proof of this? did science actually explained that? or you are just talking hypotheticals?
"Why on earth would we say that?"
because we do not assume anything until it has been proven. that is how science works, remember? if you refuse theists the right to assume god exists without having proof (and from a scientific point of view, i agree) then it stands to reason that until someone explains thoroughly love, you assume it isn't explained. you may hypothesize it can be explained at some point in the future if you wish.
"So you admit common characteristics? What are they?"
release of endorphines in the organism. a certain sense of happiness that is a result of endorphines. brain activity in roughly the same areas but not identical and that's all i could think of.
"Well enough for what?"
to be described, proven, scientifically. it is why you can't prove or disprove god. if you have a vague, general, unfalsifiable definition, how can you hope to make any relevant claims?
"How is that relevant? Are you saying that because science can study gravity and love differs from gravity therefore science can't study love? Do you realise what a ridiculous argument that is?"
anything is ridiculous after you alter it to suit you. i was giving an example that gravity is not subjective whereas love is. that once you understand something, you can make predictions, which, given the same set of circumstances, will always come true.
"If a statistic exists, then it surely could be determined by science?"
depends on the statistic, and how it is determined. if your statistic goes like "80% of men weighing 80 kilos will fall in love with blondes" then no, i don't accept it. how would you use statistics to predict someone falling in love? or remaining in love?
"All I can say is you are not making any sense whatsoever."
then i must not be making any sense whatsoever. you don't need to prove that.
"You seem to be saying that since the gravity on earth is of a different strength from gravity on Jupiter therefore science cannot be used to study it. "
i am not saying that at all. it is funny how you didn't consider the possibility you may simply not understand me, just that i am either saying nonsense intentionally, or i am oblivious that i am saying nonsense.
i can reiterate: one may decide he is not in love with someone.
earth cannot decide to not obey the sun's gravitation.
that is why we have the law of gravitation and we do not have the law of love.
02 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnswer the question.
Based on what do you decide?
exactly
Do you just arbitrarily one day say your are in love
yes
That is simply not true - unless you are talking about something other than what most people mean by love.
then arbitrarily some other day say that you are not in love?
yes, it is possible. you say you are not in love any more because of a variety of reasons.
Oops. Do you not know what 'arbitrarily' means? Make up your mind. Are there reasons, or aren't there?
some may find themselves out of love because of the other's infidelity. others may simply drift out of love after a period of time because they are no longer surprised.
So, not arbitrarily.
I have no idea what your definition of love is. you have dodged the issue constantly.
I have dodged the issue? Where? Which question of yours did I not answer?
you only claim there is one and it can be scientifically described and proven. yet you have no idea about a way to do that.
When did I say I had no idea about a way to do that?
what differences?
We would have to do scientific experiments to find out, wouldn't we? But it could be done.
we all have different brains. yet there are many with the same notion of love. what difference accounts for what kind of love?
We can do experiments to find out.
are you saying that the love for van gogh can be determined by a brain scan?
If it was detailed enough, yes.
that you must have an identical lump of neurons somewhere in the brain (or scattered in numerous places) like every other human in the world who likes van gogh?
No, why should it be identical? I can write 500 different computer programs that all perform the same function and give the same results. Reading the code of these programs would tell you what the result are. Scientific analysis of these programs is perfectly possible. They do not have to be identical.
and most importantly, do you have proof of this?
No, why would I need it?
did science actually explained that?
No, we don't yet have the capability to do a brain scan an discover whether or not you like a particular painters work. But that doesn't mean it will never be possible.
because we do not assume anything until it has been proven. that is how science works, remember?
No, actually it isn't. Science almost never proves anything. Science is about finding patterns and understanding their cause. Its about finding out how the world works.
You seem to be saying that until science has proven how something works, then science is incapable of studying that thing and shouldn't even bother trying.
if you refuse theists the right to assume god exists without having proof (and from a scientific point of view, i agree) then it stands to reason that until someone explains thoroughly love, you assume it isn't explained.
Earlier you claimed it could not be explained. Maybe the problem here is English, not an actual disagreement. Are you claiming that science has not yet fully described how love works, or are you claiming that science can never fully describe how love works, or even begin to describe it?
Don't forget that your original claim had to do with whether science could be used to study it, not whether or not science had been used to study it or whether science had any findings on the matter.
release of endorphines in the organism. a certain sense of happiness that is a result of endorphines. brain activity in roughly the same areas but not identical and that's all i could think of.
Then you are contradicting some of your earlier statements. Also, the release of endorphines can be studied by science.
to be described, proven, scientifically. it is why you can't prove or disprove god. if you have a vague, general, unfalsifiable definition, how can you hope to make any relevant claims?
You can't, but the definition becomes totally useless. In reality, most people do have a definition for love that can be studied scientifically, and do have a definition for God that can be proved to not exist.
You yourself have already backtracked on your claim that love had no defining characteristics.
anything is ridiculous after you alter it to suit you. i was giving an example that gravity is not subjective whereas love is. that once you understand something, you can make predictions, which, given the same set of circumstances, will always come true.
Which applies equally to gravity and to love. The problem is that you don't realise that you threw in 'the same set of circumstances' which makes it not subjective.
depends on the statistic, and how it is determined. if your statistic goes like "80% of men weighing 80 kilos will fall in love with blondes" then no, i don't accept it.
Why not? If it was determined scientifically, then why would you still reject it? Because you don't like the result?
how would you use statistics to predict someone falling in love? or remaining in love?
The same way just about all such statistics are used. They give a prediction about how likely something is. You may also choose to change the likelihood of a given outcome by changing the circumstances. So if you know that cheating on your wife increases the likelihood of her falling out of love with you, you may choose not to do so.
i am not saying that at all. it is funny how you didn't consider the possibility you may simply not understand me, just that i am either saying nonsense intentionally, or i am oblivious that i am saying nonsense.
Of course I considered the possibility that I am not understanding you. Hence all the questions asking for clarification and my attempt to put your position in my own words to see if I am correct. If I am not understanding you correctly, then please clarify.
i can reiterate: one may decide he is not in love with someone.
earth cannot decide to not obey the sun's gravitation.
that is why we have the law of gravitation and we do not have the law of love.
Sorry, but you are still not making any sense.
02 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is simply not true - unless you are talking about something other than what most people mean by love.
Answer the question.
[b]Do you just arbitrarily one day say your are in love
yes
That is simply not true - unless you are talking about something other than what most people mean by love.
then arbitrarily some other day say that you are not in love?
yes, it is possible. you say you are not in love any more because of a variety of reasons.[ ...[text shortened]... vitation and we do not have the law of love.
Sorry, but you are still not making any sense.[/b]
there are causes that are used to explain the lack of love. but one particular cause will be ignored by some or not others. if one's spouse cheats, sometimes one will fall out of love, and sometimes not. lack of diversity, incompatibility, spending time a part, etc, all reasons why people fall out of love, will not be cause for breaking up for someone else.
what scientific theory is this that you cannot predict an outcome to an experiment?
"Do you not know what 'arbitrarily' means? Make up your mind. Are there reasons, or aren't there"
if those "reasons" arbitrarily have different outcomes, that makes love arbitrary.
"So, not arbitrarily."
so, very arbitrary. if i let a tennis ball drop, it will never arbitrarily get stuck in mid air. if i cheat on my wife, she may forgive me or not. she may still love me or not.
"I have dodged the issue? Where? Which question of yours did I not
answer?"
define love. if you claim love can be defined, then try.
"When did I say I had no idea about a way to do that?"
you didn't. i said it because it is obvious you have no idea. you simply say instinctively that science must explain everything there is.
just like instinctively i say there must be a god, although i have no idea how anyone could prove there is a god, ever.
"We would have to do scientific experiments to find out, wouldn't we? But it could be done."
translation: "i have no idea how such an experiment would look like, i have no idea how i would measure the results, i have no idea how it could be generalized to the whole human race, but there must be such an experiment, there just has to be one. you sound like rjhinds."
"If it was detailed enough, yes."
so not with current technology? i could say as well that if we had good enough particle accelerators, we could find what particles are quarks made of (or see the string), but until i actually make the experiment and reproduce the result, we consider the quark to be an elementary particle.
"No, why would I need it?"
why does anyone need a proof to make an affirmation? is that what you are asking
"No, we don't yet have the capability to do a brain scan an discover whether or not you like a particular painters work. But that doesn't mean it will never be possible."
so until we actual prove your affirmation, the correct stance is...?
"No, actually it isn't. Science almost never proves anything. Science is about finding patterns and understanding their cause. Its about finding out how the world works."
that is what proving something means.
"Earlier you claimed it could not be explained."
right now it can't be. i admit that if you find a logical explanation, i will change my position.
"Then you are contradicting some of your earlier statements."
not even close. lots of stuff releases endorphines.
"Also, the release of endorphines can be studied by science."
as i said it already, i accept that certain effects of love on the human body can be studied.
" In reality, most people do have a definition for love that can be studied scientifically"
what is that definition? where is it published? i might be behind on my study. i don't remember ever studying love in school.
"Why not? If it was determined scientifically, then why would you still reject it? "
all statistics are determined scientifically. yet they could be useless to your purpose. "80% of males weighing 80 kilos falling in love with blondes" still doesn't tell you if a particular male will fall in love next year. or at all. or it could be a trend only for the period in which the statistic was taken.
you have to know what you use the statistic for. "determined scientifically" means squat by itself.
"They give a prediction about how likely something is."
no they don't. that's probability. statistics only tell you a certain trend. you may then find out why that trend is happening. with real science.
if you do not understand how the stock market works, looking at a trend of a certain stock won't help you much.
"sorry, but you are still not making any sense."
one is a subjective human concept that is different for each individual (hence subjective) and the other is a proven and mostly understood law of nature. that's about as clear as i can be.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 May 14
Zahlanzi ...
You seem pretty dead set on the idea that humans and their emotions are all unique and
unpredictable and incomprehensible...
However all the evidence we have indicates the opposite.
People are inherently predictable, particularly on mass.
There is increasing research being done looking into human behaviour, in particular how
we make mistakes. And it is showing us that we are all prone to the same kinds of errors,
that you can successfully and reliably alter peoples decisions by how you frame questions...
ect ect.
The fact is that human behaviour, and feelings, are totally open to scientific study and explanation.
I have to ask why you seem to find this idea so horrible that you react to it in the way you have?
02 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeHowever all the evidence we have indicates the opposite.
Zahlanzi ...
You seem pretty dead set on the idea that humans and their emotions are all unique and
unpredictable and incomprehensible...
However all the evidence we have indicates the opposite.
People are inherently predictable, particularly on mass.
There is increasing research being done looking into human behaviour, in particular how
we ...[text shortened]... have to ask why you seem to find this idea so horrible that you react to it in the way you have?
People are inherently predictable, particularly on mass.
love is not a mass response. love is individual. you may predict how a mass of people reacts in a war, you may predict how it reacts during a disaster, at a social event. you may describe how schizophrenics might behave in general. you cannot predict who falls in love with whom. how many obstacles can they endure and remain in love.
" And it is showing us that we are all prone to the same kinds of errors,
that you can successfully and reliably alter peoples decisions by how you frame questions..."
i agree. to a certain degree.
"The fact is that human behaviour, and feelings, are totally open to scientific study and explanation."
some aspects of it, yes.
"I have to ask why you seem to find this idea so horrible that you react to it in the way you have?"
you make it sound that i am frothing at the mouth while i am typing my responses to twhite. far from it. i may have slightly higher blood pressure when i am talking to rjhinds or robbie. in this case, it is a discussion that i enjoy, in which i took one stance and twhite the other. i may feel strongly about my stance, i know very well i won't change his mind, that doesn't mean i am mad he has a different opinion .
you adhere to the school of thought that states free will is an illusion, that we are utterly predictable. i refuse to think that. from that i state that love too, something we have invented in order to better make social connections, is subjective and inpredictable.
social imperatives, human imperatives can be explained scientifically as a means to better survive. we are social creatures we need to make meaningful connections and form a society in order to survive. the manner in which we form those connections (love for instance) is subjective to each individual and constitutes the flavour if you will of each individual's connection.
02 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziHave you studied any science? Can you predict whether it will rain in 2 weeks from now? Is the rain and other weather effect immune from scientific study?
what scientific theory is this that you cannot predict an outcome to an experiment?
I think you are quite confused about what science actually is. It doesn't necessarily come up with an exact formula for an exact answer to everything. In some cases, such as quantum mechanics, it is believe that no exact answer even exists. But that doesn't mean it isn't science.
if those "reasons" arbitrarily have different outcomes, that makes love arbitrary.
But the outcomes are not arbitrary.
so, very arbitrary. if i let a tennis ball drop, it will never arbitrarily get stuck in mid air. if i cheat on my wife, she may forgive me or not. she may still love me or not.
Sorry, but thats a bad analogy. What about a comparison of throwing a die, and you cheating on your wife? Both are very hard to predict with science because of the number of variables, but both are theoretically possible to predict with some certainty.
define love. if you claim love can be defined, then try.
Look it up in a dictionary. You could also read through this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves
As you can see it is a word with quite a wide range of meaning depending on context. But it is not without definition. You know this or you wouldn't even use it in a sentence.
i said it because it is obvious you have no idea.
Well, it may be obvious to you, but it is untrue. I do have an idea.
you simply say instinctively that science must explain everything there is.
No, I say science can explain most things that are.
translation: "i have no idea how such an experiment would look like, i have no idea how i would measure the results, i have no idea how it could be generalized to the whole human race, but there must be such an experiment, there just has to be one. you sound like rjhinds."
Sorry but that is a very poor translation. I could design such experiments. I do not have the time or money to actually carry them out.
so not with current technology?
Correct.
i could say as well that if we had good enough particle accelerators, we could find what particles are quarks made of (or see the string), but until i actually make the experiment and reproduce the result, we consider the quark to be an elementary particle.
Do we? I don't.
so until we actual prove your affirmation, the correct stance is...?
The correct stance is to study it with science.