Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by jockeys

... there is no way to objectively observe god(s) at work, anymore than there is to observe directly. what one man attributes to a deity, another attributes to chance. two people can look at the exact same happenstance, and see different forces at work. without objectivity and observable, repeatable circumstances, there is no reliable way to know which forces caused it.

I'll admit that's a good, critical assessment of it. If faith is unreliable, then I think what you just said is true

Originally Posted by jockeys

love and courage are human constructs used to abstract more complex concepts... a lot like the idea of a deity. besides, you CAN prove the existence of certain emotions... via CATscan.

Of course emotions can be proven. They just can't be directly observed. That's my point
Concepts also exist but yet can't be directly observed. I'm not quite sure what you were pointing out with the above quote

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, instead of saying to your beloved: "Honey, I love you"

Try this: "Attention female, my neo-cortex frontal lobe is experiencing synaptic response"

And then when she slaps you and makes you sleep on the couch, you can find comfort in the fact that it was simply the females overactive hormonal imbalance that caused her to respond in such a way...

Next time run her through the CAT scanner first before attempting mating...

I actually say that sort of thing to my wife all the time, she has learned to roll with it. eta: I have a problem with physical violence in relationships, it is not tolerated in mine, from either party.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I'll admit that's a good, critical assessment of it. If faith is unreliable, then I think what you just said is true


Of course emotions can be proven. They just can't be directly observed. That's my point
Concepts also exist but yet can't be directly observed. I'm not quite sure what you were pointing out with the above quote

I was saying that emotions CAN be directly observed, via catscan. realtime observation of emotional responses is very much possible, just expensive and inconvenient. since emotions are just chemicals reacting in your skull, you can observe them with the right equipment.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, instead of saying to your beloved: "Honey, I love you"

Try this: "Attention female, my neo-cortex frontal lobe is experiencing synaptic response"

Ah, but there's a difference between using conventional terms of endearment and believing that the causes for them are unobservable.

Just because we understand how emotions are formed in the brain doesn't mean we have to throw away the "old fashion" ways of expressing them.

By analogy, one can appreciate Hellenistic Greek art without believing in the Pantheon.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I was saying that emotions CAN be directly observed, via catscan. realtime observation of emotional responses is very much possible, just expensive and inconvenient. since emotions are just chemicals reacting in your skull, you can observe them with the right equipment.

You can only observe the natural emotional response. The emotion itself is not bound to any particular form of matter or energy, as it is an idea that the brain is free to react to
I can observe realtime emotional responses without a CAT scanner But I cannot actually observe the emotion itself. You say they are constructs used to abstract concepts and we come back to the same thing. You cannot observe a concept itself. It can be influenced by nature, but does not originate with it.

jockeys, you don't suppose that scientists have discovered mind reading... (and is it moral to put the psychics out of business?)

Originally Posted by jockeys

I actually say that sort of thing to my wife all the time, she has learned to roll with it. eta: I have a problem with physical violence in relationships, it is not tolerated in mine, from either party.



I was saying that emotions CAN be directly observed, via catscan. realtime observation of emotional responses is very much possible, just expensive and inconvenient. since emotions are just chemicals reacting in your skull, you can observe them with the right equipment.

Possible, but not via catscan. PET, fMRI, but not catscan.

hog-> I would say that the emotion itself is nothing more than a chemical reaction in your head. one that was evolutionally useful at some point, and so the trait was passed on.

Originally Posted by jockeys

hog-> I would say that the emotion itself is nothing more than a chemical reaction in your head. one that was evolutionally useful at some point, and so the trait was passed on.

Would you also say that life itself is nothing more than chemical reactions in your body?
I don't think I could ever buy into physicalism. How should I be convinced that my choices are not results of my own free will, but that I am a zombie?


(at least I have a bbs face, even if I am a zombie)

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Would you also say that life itself is nothing more than chemical reactions in your body?
I don't think I could ever buy into physicalism. How should I be convinced that my choices are not results of my own free will, but that I am a zombie?

what's to say "your own free will" isn't also an aggregate set of chemical reactions?

Originally Posted by jockeys

what's to say "your own free will" isn't also an aggregate set of chemical reactions?

I am to say. what controls those physical reactions? More physical catalysts? If a choice is a physical entity, then there is some physical reason for that choice, and a physical reason for that one, etc. As I go back far enough, those reasons will precede my very conception. So unless I have been reincarnated, by your theory (I think) then I will have never made any decision on my own

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I am to say. what controls those physical reactions? More physical catalysts? If a choice is a physical entity, then there is some physical reason for that choice, and a physical reason for that one, etc. As I go back far enough, those reasons will precede my very conception. So unless I have been reincarnated, by your theory (I think) then I will have never made any decision on my own

unless you define decision making as also a chemical reaction, in which case you make them all the time.