|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:04 pm
Artto Vagabond8 Only if you think you can feel more than just physical pleasure without a soul. So a soul is needed to feel emotional pain? Emotional pleasure? Why would that be so? The emotions have to come from somewhere.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:39 am
Vagabond8 The emotions have to come from somewhere. Yes. From the brain, most likely. You do realize emotions serve completely practical and logical purposes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:19 am
Artto Vagabond8 The emotions have to come from somewhere. Yes. From the brain, most likely. You do realize emotions serve completely practical and logical purposes? And you do realize that the scientifics concerning emotions and feelings is still very much guesswork?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:46 am
Tiina Brown And you do realize that the scientifics concerning emotions and feelings is still very much guesswork? Which scientific research about emotions is guesswork? There's no guesswork in science, because the scientific method is about not claiming something without evidence. "We don't know" doesn't constitute guesswork. Defining a soul as something we need for emotions and then citing emotions as evidence for a soul is worse than guesswork. It's circular reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:10 am
Artto Tiina Brown And you do realize that the scientifics concerning emotions and feelings is still very much guesswork? Which scientific research about emotions is guesswork? There's no guesswork in science, because the scientific method is about not claiming something without evidence. "We don't know" doesn't constitute guesswork. Defining a soul as something we need for emotions and then citing emotions as evidence for a soul is worse than guesswork. It's circular reasoning. About the bolded: Then what are theories? About the underlined: And i thought "Circular reasoning" was "A proves B & B proves A" .... In this case, it is "my impression is that A is neccesary for B, therefor B proves A". Is that really "Circular reasoning"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:30 am
Tiina Brown About the bolded: Then what are theories? Wikipedia A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory. Not at all "guesswork". And even if there was no scientific work done on emotions, that wouldn't be an argument for a soul. The unknown doesn't justify supposing anything you like. Tiina Brown About the underlined: And i thought "Circular reasoning" was "A proves B & B proves A" .... In this case, it is "my impression is that A is neccesary for B, therefor B proves A". Is that really "Circular reasoning"? It may not be circular reasoning in the strictest sense, but I would put it in that category. But that's beside the point. Even if it's not, it's horribly fallacious. Another example of such logic: Wind needs Aeolus, ancient greek god of wind to exist. Wind exists, therefore Aeolus is real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:01 am
Artto Tiina Brown About the bolded: Then what are theories? Wikipedia A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory. Not at all "guesswork". And even if there was no scientific work done on emotions, that wouldn't be an argument for a soul. The unknown doesn't justify supposing anything you like. Tiina Brown About the underlined: And i thought "Circular reasoning" was "A proves B & B proves A" .... In this case, it is "my impression is that A is neccesary for B, therefor B proves A". Is that really "Circular reasoning"? It may not be circular reasoning in the strictest sense, but I would put it in that category. But that's beside the point. Even if it's not, it's horribly fallacious. Another example of such logic: Wind needs Aeolus, ancient greek god of wind to exist. Wind exists, therefore Aeolus is real. Bolded: Then how come several "theories" actually still is hypothesises, like the famous Theory of Relativities? From what i know, from a scientific magazine, Einsteins theory of relativities has been only partially proven, and even partially disproven. And it was defined at a theory quite early on. As far as it seems to me, the general defenition of "theory" is a possible explanation, not The explanation, because when it's fully proven, it is a fact, and not a theory. However, i see a clear gap here, between what is defined as a theory and not. To you, a theory is proven, but from what i've learned, a theory is not proven. I seem to have learned wrong, then, and i'm not surprised the slightest about that. However, since the "Theory of relativities" is only partially proven, it thus shouldn't be called a theory .... .... Sorry, i'm getting away from the topic here... ////////////// Another such logic: Gravity is needed for things to fall back to the ground, things fall back to the groung, therefor, Gravity exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:50 am
Tiina Brown Then how come several "theories" actually still is hypothesises, like the famous Theory of Relativities? It's not, it's a theory. Because it works. Tiina Brown From what i know, from a scientific magazine, Einsteins theory of relativities has been only partially proven, and even partially disproven. Partially disproven? First time I've heard it. Also, theories can't be proven 100%. They are the current best explanation of the facts. There are no absolute proofs in science. Tiina Brown As far as it seems to me, the general defenition of "theory" is a possible explanation, not The explanation, because when it's fully proven, it is a fact, and not a theory. No. Theories explain facts. Facts are the things we observe, theories explain them. Tiina Brown However, i see a clear gap here, between what is defined as a theory and not. To you, a theory is proven, but from what i've learned, a theory is not proven. I seem to have learned wrong, then, and i'm not surprised the slightest about that. However, since the "Theory of relativities" is only partially proven, it thus shouldn't be called a theory .... Again, a theory can't be proven, strictly speaking, since it's the current best explanation of the facts. If we get new information, it can change. It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, though, but even that isn't 100%. Tiina Brown Gravity is needed for things to fall back to the ground, things fall back to the groung, therefor, Gravity exist. If you wanted to use this argument to prove gravity, it would be wrong. But you don't need to. We know gravity exists, because we can observe it. Gravity is the force of attraction between massive bodies. It's just what we call that force. What causes it is another question, currently not explained. In the case of the soul, there is no good reason to suppose it exists. Emotions, as far as we can tell, are caused by the brain. Well, depends on how you define a soul. If you define it as some transcendental, magical ... something, then no, there's no reason to suppose that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:26 am
Ok, i give up trying to argue with you, you fail to see when you contradict yourself, so it is no point in arguing with you in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:39 am
Tiina Brown Ok, i give up trying to argue with you, you fail to see when you contradict yourself, so it is no point in arguing with you in this case. What? Where did I contradict myself? Please, point it out, again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:55 am
Wow. When did this turn into an argument of science? I think what everyone really needs to consider (if we're going to keep following this same line of argument) is where do emotions really come from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:19 pm
Vagabond8 Wow. When did this turn into an argument of science? I think what everyone really needs to consider (if we're going to keep following this same line of argument) is where do emotions really come from? The brain, apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:56 pm
Artto Vagabond8 Wow. When did this turn into an argument of science? I think what everyone really needs to consider (if we're going to keep following this same line of argument) is where do emotions really come from? The brain, apparently. Ok, how and why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:53 am
If someone knocks you out, you lose consciousness and with that all your emotions and feelings. If your brain gets damaged or if you take mind-altering drugs, your personality, your emotions and your experience of the world can change. Seems kinda obvious to me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:42 am
Artto Tiina Brown Ok, i give up trying to argue with you, you fail to see when you contradict yourself, so it is no point in arguing with you in this case. What? Where did I contradict myself? Please, point it out, again. I tried to. My failure. But then, it is better you figure it out for yourself, you should be able to, just think logically, you are, after all, good at it. And no, i am not sarcastic or ironizing, i mean it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
