(May 4, 2013 at 4:00 am)homocidlefreak Wrote: I'm sorry but this is wrong. The feeling of love is a chemical reaction in the brain.

Again, I am going to attempt to explain something that I perceive to be beyond the scope of reason via the natural use of English language (which is, by definition, governed by reason).

Saying "the feeling of love is a chemical reaction in the brain" is a very simplistic explanation for an exceedingly complex philosophical topic; it is a statement from a rationalist perspective, which I view as utterly inadequate. We can supplement rationalism with empiricism and include the scientific method to make sense of love from a material reductionist perspective. For example, scientists in the field of cognitive/imaging neuroscience have utilised functional magnetic resonance imaging devices to demonstrate that there are neural correlations (mainly the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and the hormone oxytocin) when an individual is experiencing love. This is about as far as science takes us as regards providing an explanation for "how love works".

In terms of viewing this from a wider perspective, evolutionary biologists are generally puzzled as to why love actually exists. Love and altruism appear to have absolutely no bearing on the propagation of DNA and, therefore, seem to be absolutely superfluous; the propagation of DNA is "the meaning of life" from an evolutionary perspective. Richard Dawkins stated in one of his interviews: "I fully accept that science cannot explain love" (I will provide a link to the YouTube video if you wish) and I completely agree. To me, love is something that goes beyond the scope of reason, the scientific method and rational language.

(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: Again, I am going to attempt to explain something that I perceive to be beyond the scope of reason via the natural use of English language (which is, by definition, governed by reason).

This is not a unique perspective, we all attempt to do this everyday. Many things in human experience are inadequately communicated in language. Think about what purposes language would have evolved to serve and look at how far we've stretched it from there. The wonder is that language is able to convey as much as it does.

(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: Saying "the feeling of love is a chemical reaction in the brain" is a very simplistic explanation for an exceedingly complex philosophical topic; it is a statement from a rationalist perspective, which I view as utterly inadequate. We can supplement rationalism with empiricism and include the scientific method to make sense of love from a material reductionist perspective. For example, scientists in the field of cognitive/imaging neuroscience have utilised functional magnetic resonance imaging devices to demonstrate that there are neural correlations (mainly the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and the hormone oxytocin) when an individual is experiencing love. This is about as far as science takes us as regards providing an explanation for "how love works".

Of course, if anyone thinks that what science can tell us of love or other subjective/emotive experiences is complete, they are short sighted. But how many people really "love is nothing but .."? Whatever the number may be, it isn't a serious position and isn't deserving of an in depth response.

(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: In terms of viewing this from a wider perspective, evolutionary biologists are generally puzzled as to why love actually exists. Love and altruism appear to have absolutely no bearing on the propagation of DNA and, therefore, seem to be absolutely superfluous; the propagation of DNA is "the meaning of life" from an evolutionary perspective. Richard Dawkins stated in one of his interviews: "I fully accept that science cannot explain love" (I will provide a link to the YouTube video if you wish) and I completely agree. To me, love is something that goes beyond the scope of reason, the scientific method and rational language.

I don't think all evolutionary biologists are puzzled by why love exists. We can observe strong pair bonds in many other creatures than ourselves. While it is important not to anthropomorphize, neither is it a good idea to assume that the quality of experience in other creatures is so very different than our own.

Sure, love extends beyond the scope of science and the descriptive powers of language. That is pretty obvious and I think likely the majority opinion.

---

(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: Again, I am going to attempt to explain something that I perceive to be beyond the scope of reason via the natural use of English language (which is, by definition, governed by reason).

This is not a unique perspective, we all attempt to do this everyday. Many things in human experience are inadequately communicated in language. Think about what purposes language would have evolved to serve and look at how far we've stretched it from there. The wonder is that language is able to convey as much as it does.

(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: Saying "the feeling of love is a chemical reaction in the brain" is a very simplistic explanation for an exceedingly complex philosophical topic; it is a statement from a rationalist perspective, which I view as utterly inadequate. We can supplement rationalism with empiricism and include the scientific method to make sense of love from a material reductionist perspective. For example, scientists in the field of cognitive/imaging neuroscience have utilised functional magnetic resonance imaging devices to demonstrate that there are neural correlations (mainly the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and the hormone oxytocin) when an individual is experiencing love. This is about as far as science takes us as regards providing an explanation for "how love works".

Of course, if anyone thinks that what science can tell us of love or other subjective/emotive experiences is complete, they are short sighted. But how many people really hold positions which can be described as "love is nothing but .."? Whatever the number may be, it isn't a serious position and isn't deserving of an in depth response.

(May 4, 2013 at 5:51 am)Love Wrote: In terms of viewing this from a wider perspective, evolutionary biologists are generally puzzled as to why love actually exists. Love and altruism appear to have absolutely no bearing on the propagation of DNA and, therefore, seem to be absolutely superfluous; the propagation of DNA is "the meaning of life" from an evolutionary perspective. Richard Dawkins stated in one of his interviews: "I fully accept that science cannot explain love" (I will provide a link to the YouTube video if you wish) and I completely agree. To me, love is something that goes beyond the scope of reason, the scientific method and rational language.

I don't think all evolutionary biologists are puzzled by why love exists. We can observe strong pair bonds in many other creatures than ourselves. While it is important not to anthropomorphize, neither is it a good idea to assume that the quality of experience in other creatures is so very different than our own. Love obviously supports the nurturance of the young through the longest childhood of any creature.

Sure, love extends beyond the scope of science and the descriptive powers of language. That is pretty obvious and I think likely the majority opinion.

I'd like that youtube link.


Why do Christian and Muslim arguments for accepting their god always devolve into arguments from ignorance or arguments from incredulity? That's a terrible foundation for anything.

(May 4, 2013 at 9:14 am)apophenia Wrote: Why do Christian and Muslim arguments for accepting their god always devolve into arguments from ignorance or arguments from incredulity? That's a terrible foundation for anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NSk_ZeAH_I

You'll have to watch the entire video.

I agree, but I do not consider my position as an argument from ignorance. After years of researching these topics, I have gained a lot of knowledge in many scientific disciplines including physics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychopharmacology. As a computer science student, I also have a keen interest in artificial intelligence (specifically the research area of artificial consciousness) and theoretical computer science (Big O, binary logarithms, probability theory et cetera). I am very, very fond of all scientific disciplines; I always have been and always will be. I am also very, very fond of philosophy, hence the reason why I am engaging in these discussions. Although I might be proved wrong in the future, I hold the belief that there are certain areas that science cannot, and will never be able to, adequately explain; there will always be multiple interpretations of the available evidence. Accounting for the strange behaviour of subatomic particles (photons and electrons) at the quantum level, consciousness and love are three examples that spring to mind. So you might ask: why invoke God to fill the gap? Because it is what makes the most sense to me; inference to the best explanation (abductive logic).

The Argument From Ignorance doesn't mean that the person making it is ignorant, but that the argument they are making relies on ignorance to make it work. For example, "I have no idea how electricity works, so it's probably tiny invisible magic imps".

(May 4, 2013 at 10:17 am)Stimbo Wrote: The Argument From Ignorance doesn't mean that the person making it is ignorant, but that the argument they are making relies on ignorance to make it work. For example, "I have no idea how electricity works, so it's probably tiny invisible magic imps".

Indeed. I was simply stating that I do not consider my position to be an argument from ignorance/a God of the gaps explanation.

Quote:The Argument From Ignorance doesn't mean that the person making it is ignorant,

...but it certainly helps.

(May 4, 2013 at 10:08 am)Love Wrote: Although I might be proved wrong in the future, I hold the belief that there are certain areas that science cannot, and will never be able to, adequately explain; there will always be multiple interpretations of the available evidence. Accounting for the strange behaviour of subatomic particles (photons and electrons) at the quantum level, consciousness and love are three examples that spring to mind.

Even if the above is true, that is the point at which intellectually honest people will answer, "I don't know".

Quote:So you might ask: why invoke God to fill the gap? Because it is what makes the most sense to me; inference to the best explanation (abductive logic).

What makes the most sense to you is meaningless concerning the actual truth. At one time, it made the 'most sense' to most of humanity that: disease was caused by demon possession or curses, the earth was the center of the solar system and the galaxy, that there was a dome over the earth, etc, etc.

Filling in gaps with 'magic done it' has never gotten us closer to the truth.

---

(May 4, 2013 at 10:49 am)Love Wrote: Indeed. I was simply stating that I do not consider my position to be an argument from ignorance/a God of the gaps explanation.

Quote: So you might ask: why invoke God to fill the gap?

You may not consider it an argument from ignorance, but that is exactly what it is.

(May 4, 2013 at 10:52 am)Simon Moon Wrote: What makes the most sense to you is meaningless concerning the actual truth. At one time, it made the 'most sense' to most of humanity that: disease was caused by demon possession or curses, the earth was the center of the solar system and the galaxy, that there was a dome over the earth, etc, etc.

Okay, what is the "actual truth"? Does rationalism + empiricism lead us to truth?

(May 4, 2013 at 10:49 am)Love Wrote: Indeed. I was simply stating that I do not consider my position to be an argument from ignorance/a God of the gaps explanation.

In that case please provide the substance behind your argument.