Miracles ?

[sandandfoam]

We don't (yet) understand all of the details but the fundamental principals are core mechanisms are fairly well defined.

Not even close.
Google the 'hard problem of consciousness'

 

[PolyHedral]

If it is wrote off it is not a miracle, a miracle would be something supernatural such as a man growing back a limb without medical help. This is a miracle, science wouldn't be able to explain it.

Nanomachines. There's a scientifically valid, though utterly implausible, explanation. "God did it" is actually pretty high up the list for explanations of apparently inexplicable events.

 

[HonestJoe]

That explains attraction. It also explains family. It doesn't begin to explain the orientation of the soul to someone.

It does if "orientation of the soul" is nothing more than a metaphor for the emotion also called love.

If you're claiming the existence of a (meta)physical soul with a (meta)physical orientation which has some kind of influence on our emotions, you'd need to demonstrate that before requiring an explanation for how it works.

 

[HonestJoe]

Not even close.
Google the 'hard problem of consciousness'

An interesting philosophical debate on the face of it but not one that breaks my fundamental point. It just adds a little more uncertainty on exactly where the scientific study of the mind could take us.

 

[sandandfoam]

It does if "orientation of the soul" is nothing more than a metaphor for the emotion also called love.

If you're claiming the existence of a (meta)physical soul with a (meta)physical orientation which has some kind of influence on our emotions, you'd need to demonstrate that before requiring an explanation for how it works.

A common criticism of cognitive psychology is that it is inherently dualistic. Should cognitive psychology demonstrate the existence of the 'ghost in the machine' before requiring an explanation for how cognition works?

 

[sandandfoam]

An interesting philosophical debate on the face of it but not one that breaks my fundamental point. It just adds a little more uncertainty on exactly where the scientific study of the mind could take us.

We have no idea whatsover of why things feel like they do, we have no real idea of what consciousness is. It is not properly defined and you maintain

fundamental principals are core mechanisms are fairly well defined.

Quite a stretch.

 

[sojourner]

It does if "orientation of the soul" is nothing more than a metaphor for the emotion also called love.

Is it?

If you're claiming the existence of a (meta)physical soul with a (meta)physical orientation which has some kind of influence on our emotions, you'd need to demonstrate that before requiring an explanation for how it works.

If you're claiming the non-existence of the soul, you'd need to demonstrate that non-existence before requiring an explanation for how humanity works.

 

[PolyHedral]

Occam's razor? The default position should be disbelief.

 

[sandandfoam]

Occam's razor? The default position should be disbelief.

Why presume that reality exists in a manner which matches what appears simplest to our feeble minds?

 

[HonestJoe]

We have no idea whatsover of why things feel like they do, we have no real idea of what consciousness is. It is not properly defined and you maintain

I'll accept "fairly well" was overselling it in regards to the whole field but I'd say "no real idea" is underselling it. There must be some ideas for the level of intelectual debate your googling suggesting threw up.

The key point I was responding to was whether science (i.e. scienctific method) is capable of explaining such things and I say it can (though we're not yet capable of using it to do so).

 

[HonestJoe]

Is it?

Don't ask me, it's your mystery phrase! How can anyone explain it if we don't even know if it's literal or metaphorical?

If you're claiming the non-existence of the soul, you'd need to demonstrate that non-existence before requiring an explanation for how humanity works.

I'm not claiming non-existence of the soul, I'm claiming a (very basic) understanding of how emotions like love come to be.

If you wish to introduce a whole new concept in to the picture, you need to explain what you mean by it.

 

[sojourner]

Don't ask me, it's your mystery phrase! How can anyone explain it if we don't even know if it's literal or metaphorical?

That's the point. It's an ineffable quality that appears to be inherent to human beings for which science has no explanation, thereby rendering your assertion to be false.

I'm not claiming non-existence of the soul, I'm claiming a (very basic) understanding of how emotions like love come to be.

And I'm claiming that, while we can know several things about the biochemical processes, none of that says anything meaningful about how we experience love, or why love is important to us.

If you wish to introduce a whole new concept in to the picture, you need to explain what you mean by it.

the concept of ineffability isn't new to the picture of the whole human being.

 

[PolyHedral]

Why presume that reality exists in a manner which matches what appears simplest to our feeble minds?

The razor does not favour the simplest explanation; It favors the explanation involving the least entities. Isn't it a good idea not to assume things exist when you have no reason to do so?

 

[McBell]

If you're claiming the non-existence of the soul, you'd need to demonstrate that non-existence before requiring an explanation for how humanity works.

I take it you cannot demonstrate the existence of the "soul"?

Seems to me that if you could, you would not need to resort to such a cop out as this.

 

[sandandfoam]

Isn't it a good idea not to assume things exist when you have no reason to do so?

Show me anyone who assumes anything without reason.

 

[PolyHedral]

The Last Thursdayists.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Science can't answer why I might love someone. Don't think it ever will, either.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it does...

 

[Beaudreaux]

Why presume that reality exists in a manner which matches what appears simplest to our feeble minds?

Because maybe we have 5 souls, or maybe we have 42, or maybe we're being piloted by tiny, tiny aliens, or maybe I'm an elaborate puppet run by unseen monkeys who will one day come flying out of my butt. These suppositions, just like the supposition of the soul, are both groundless and explain nothing.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's the point. It's an ineffable quality that appears to be inherent to human beings for which science has no explanation, thereby rendering your assertion to be false.

I question the idea of this "ineffable quality". Just because there are lots of aspects of the mind that we currently don't understand is absolutely no reason to presume that we will never understand them, let alone that they are fundamentally unable to be understood by anyone or anything.

Also, if it is an ineffable quality, how can you give it such a definitive term as "soul" and describe it's "orientation"? If your cake is ineffable, you can't have it or eat it.

And I'm claiming that, while we can know several things about the biochemical processes, none of that says anything meaningful about how we experience love, or why love is important to us.

The how is a function of the biochemistry (large aspects of which we don't (yet) understand) and the why can be explained as a function of our social structures, encouraging us to care for and protect each other (difficult to definitively prove but well supported by evidence).
There is only a problem is you've already assumed that there is something special about love which is beyond science by definition but there is no reason to do so. There is absolutely nothing to suggest anything here is somehow immune to fundamental scientific method. Our ability to measure and understand are the only apparent limitations.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's not the ONLY axiom of science... or if it is, it's a crappy axiom, because you can't deduce too much from one axiom. There's also the assumption that the observable universe is measurable. And then the vast majority of scientists accept certain other axioms. For example, the assumption that the universe works the same way everywhere is pretty prevalent. Science also usually subsumes deductive logic. That way we can figure out stuff about the unobservable/indirectly observable universe.

The fact that the Universe is measurable springs from the assumption that it is real. Measurements are, after all, a man made invention. A very useful manmade invention, but nonetheless.
The fact that the Universe works the same everywhere is an assumption made from observation, again based on the assumption that the Universe is real.

But this is all semantics and fairly uninteresting.