What is Your Disbelief?

[RestlessSoul]

Errrr..... no.

If that were the case, psychiatrists wouldn't be presrcibing brain chemistry altering drugs to treat things like anxiety, depression, psychosis, etc.

If treating mental illness were simply a matter of adjusting defective chemistry in the brain, one might expect better results from the medical model than is frequently the case.

Which is not to say that modern medicine is ineffective, but rather that it clearly has it’s limits, beyond masking symptoms. If this were not so, there’d be no CBT nor ACT, no psychotherapy nor psychoanalysis, no mindfulness based stress reduction etc.

 

[RestlessSoul]

.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But it is what I answered.

"Love" is an emotion / phenomenon. An abstract concept, a word, we use to describe a collection of behaviors, feelings, etc.
And that concept / phenomenon / what-have-you has physical underpinnings. It is emergent from those physical underpinnings.

Remove those physical underpinnings, and the phenomenon disappears.

So love does not have intrinsic physical existence.

Kind of a roundabout way of answering, but thank you.

So getting back to the OP, one who doesn't believe in anything non-physical could not believe in love.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If treating mental illness were simply a matter of adjusting defective chemistry in the brain, one might expect better results from the medical model than is frequently the case.

Why?

Cancer is a matter of defective biology yet is also very hard to treat.
Just because something is hard to treat doesn't mean much.

Which is not to say that modern medicine is ineffective, but rather that it clearly has it’s limits, beyond masking symptoms. If this were not so, there’d be no CBT nor ACT, no psychotherapy nor psychoanalysis, no mindfulness based stress reduction etc.

None of this is an argument against the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So love does not have intrinsic physical existence.

Ultimately, it does.

So getting back to the OP, one who doesn't believe in anything non-physical could not believe in love.

False.

I don't believe in anything non-physical and have no problems at all accepting that love exists. Both the emotion as well as the collective of behaviors we associate with it. I completely disagree that "love" has a component which is not physical.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't believe in anything non-physical and have no problems at all accepting that love exists. Both the emotion as well as the collective of behaviors we associate with it. I completely disagree that "love" has a component which is not physical.

You're not wrong. In fact you helped in leading to my point.

How can an atheist that believes this about love make a habit of arguing against the existence of gods? How do they disagree that gods have a component which is not physical?

 

[Nakosis]

So, if the Christians are right about God doing miracles or speaking with people then God is physical by your understanding?

IMO, it would make more sense. Until such time there is sufficient reason to believe in the existence of a non-physical element in the universe.

 

[Nakosis]

You're not wrong. In fact you helped in leading to my point.

How can an atheist that believes this about love make a habit of arguing against the existence of gods? How do they disagree that gods have a component which is not physical?

So what is the component of love which is non-physical?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So what is the component of love which is non-physical?

Sorry, but I only respond to questions asked by people that don't ignore my own (post #11 of this thread).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're not wrong. In fact you helped in leading to my point.

How can an atheist that believes this about love make a habit of arguing against the existence of gods?

I'm not sure why you say that, considering that I'm an atheist doing exactly that..........
What is it exactly that you think I believe about love?
When you say "believe this about love....", what is it that you are referring to with "this"?

I clearly stated that it is underpinned by physical things.
I clearly stated that I don't see how it has a component that is NOT physical.

How do they disagree that gods have a component which is not physical?

Que?

Now you lost me completely.
Love demonstrably exists. Gods do not. I've never "debated" or discussed the "components of god", because there is nothing there to break down into any components...

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, but I only respond to questions asked by people that don't ignore my own (post #11 of this thread).

Perhaps if you hadn't ignored post #43.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm not sure why you say that, considering that I'm an atheist doing exactly that..........
What is it exactly that you think I believe about love?
When you say "believe this about love....", what is it that you are referring to with "this"?

You told me you believe this about love...

I clearly stated that it is underpinned by physical things.
I clearly stated that I don't see how it has a component that is NOT physical.

Que?

Now you lost me completely.
Love demonstrably exists. Gods do not. I've never "debated" or discussed the "components of god", because there is nothing there to break down into any components...

Sure there is.. There are...

Both the emotion as well as the collective of behaviors we associate with it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Perhaps if you hadn't ignored post #43.

I apologize. I missed that post. I was out and about yesterday and must have missed that notification.

 

[SalixIncendium]

These things exist as information which is physically stored. Like the information stored on you computer or phone. No one thing a computer needs a supernatural element to store this information.

Supernatural is not the antonym for physical. Physical is what can be perceived with the sense organs...what can be seen, heard, touch, smelled, and tasted. Metaphysical is that which lies beyond the senses. The items I listed in the post you responded to are metaphysical, not physical.

You said you don't believe in anything non-physical. Does that include what is metaphysical?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So what is the component of love which is non-physical?

The emotion/phenomenon/abstract concept. These are not physical. They are metaphysical.

 

[wellwisher]

What I don't believe exists is anything non-physical. Simply because I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical.
How I define physical is anything which can be detected by our senses or can affect something which we can detect by our senses.

Therefore anything claimed as supernatural or divine is imaginary to me. I understand other people believe in a reality which includes spiritual/non-physical elements. However in an argument or discussion these non-physical concepts have no significant meaning or explanatory value.

I don't mean this offensively, one has to choose for themselves what they are willing to accept. However this is how my mind works in discussions.

I used to be a Development Chemical Engineer. My job was to come up with new ways to solve environmental problems, but at the EPA compliance levels, that were 10 years in the future. This meant I had often had to start with little in the way of what already existed in material reality; not yet seen There was often nothing off the shelf, since that tech would not be compliant in 10 years and may not extrapolate. Rather I had to reverse engineer old problems to new solutions, that could achieve future standards. This was to help the nuclear industries in terms of environmental compliance; future is now.

This blue sky research; no pressure, only works, if you have faith in what is not yet seen. I did not initially know what had to be done, but only that I felt I could do it, somehow. Like the artist, the process often begin as a hunch, and then maybe a few baby steps and a few falls, toward the goal until I am walking toward the light. Without faith in that which was yet to be seen, there would be no Pyramids, as well as no modern creature comforts and breakthroughs in science and technology.

It is not until these final objects appear, fully assembled in material reality, that some start to believe. However, they miss a lot of the front end excitement connected to discovery, exploring outside the visible box. Your box so too small for me. I would feel claustrophobic. My mind wishes to see what lies in the future, that is not yet visible to those in the box. I found my niche.

 

[Quintessence]

I have answered your question a couple of times but it seems we are talking a different language.

All I've seen you do is repeat the story you believe in over and over, but not tell us anything about why you believe it, what it does for your life, why this narrative instead of other competing narratives, or how precisely it is that the actual experience of life and living is accurately conveyed by "brain chemicals" when that's not how real daily life is experienced at all (just like we don't experience a sunrise as a series of mathematical equations describing the physics of light rays). How does the belief that human experience reduces down to something we don't actually experience on any regular basis help us, as a species, in any way? Again, to use other examples, how would it be helpful to reduce all reality down to mathematical equations? Or reduce all reality down to atoms? Or to mystic energy? Whatever. The specific thing doesn't matter - what I am asking is why practice an extreme reductionism at all when that's not how our species experiences our actual lives. What value and purpose and function does that kind of worldview have? What are its strengths and weaknesses?

You are welcome to believe whatever you want but the science is not mythology and i go by the science.

Science is frequently a form of mythology - deeply-held narratives told by human persons and societies that establish foundational ideas and truths accepted by that individual or that society. It is perhaps one of the most deeply-held mythologies of many humans of this age, in fact. So much so that we've seen the rise of the ironically unscientific scientism - the notion that the only valid way of explaining anything is through this narrative and that all others are false and incorrect.

What is the brain in a vat theory? Our brains are in our heads and connect to the rest of the body via our nervous system. Which carries everything we experience to our brain and every reaction to that experience back to our bodies so we can react.

All brain, no body, no anything else at all - that's brain-in-a-vat. If "everything we do everything we experience is only known because of our brain," there is no reason to assume a body exists, senses exist, or that an external world exists, or that relationships between (now, nonexistent) objects in the external world are responsible for anything. The only thing that exists is the brain-in-a-vat.

But if, as you say, there's an actual body connected to that brain, then it is not true that "everything we do everything we experience is only known because of our brain." As I said, you were oversimplifying things even if limiting oneself to the beliefs of physicalism. Complex relationships occurs between different aspects of physical reality, resulting in something greater than the sum of its parts. That same interaction, in some ways, is what some folks feel creates experiences that are inadequately conveyed by the extreme reductionism of all reality down to just the physical. It doesn't properly account for emergent properties, lived experience, etc. Neither here nor there, perhaps, but it's why I find substance monism in all of its forms to be lacking. It flattens the complexity of reality far too much and just doesn't adequately account for too many things.

 

[ChristineM]

All I've seen you do is repeat the story you believe in over and over, but not tell us anything about why you believe it,

I believe it because of evidence. Sever the optic nerve, all experience the eyes see is lost, sever the spinal cord, all feeling, movement, experience below that cut is lost.

how precisely it is that the actual experience of life and living is accurately conveyed by "brain chemicals" when that's not how real daily life is experienced at all

That's precisely how ife is experienced.

just like we don't experience a sunrise as a series of mathematical equations describing the physics of light rays

What? Irrelevant

how would it be helpful to reduce all reality down to mathematical equations?

Again what? You seem to be unaware of the complexity and function of the brain. What have numbers got to do with it?

what I am asking is why practice an extreme reductionism at all when that's not how our species experiences our actual lives.

It is in no way reductionism to understand how the human body works.

What other way can we experience our lives? You keep on this theme but never explain what you actually mean by it

What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Knowledge is never a weakness

Science is frequently a form of mythology -

Again what? Science is the only tool we have for putting mythology on show.

All brain, no body, no anything else at all - that's brain-in-a-vat. If "everything we do everything we experience is only known because of our brain," there is no reason to assume a body exists, senses exist

Methinks you are going over the top here.
In part the body is the sensors for the brain, (sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch etc)
The other part is the brains support system, (lungs, heart, stomach etc)

But if, as you say, there's an actual body connected to that brain, then it is not true that "everything we do everything we experience is only known because of our brain.

I don't understand what you are saying here so all i can do is point you at my previous answer

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I understand the logic behind your position, but I have come to believe mountains of paranormal evidence (including my own experiences) have disqualified your beliefs from being correct.

As you are into science you must know the vast majority of matter is not directly detectable by our three-dimensional senses and instruments (so-called Dark Matter). Point is you don't know what you don't know, and the paranormal evidence suggests it is some dramatic things.

Likewise, I believe in the masses of paranormal evidence, not only from my own personal experiences but also from those of other people I know. I have almost 45 years of personal experience to draw from, and in nearly 17 of these years, I have witnessed something paranormal happen to either people I know or someone else participating in a paranormal investigation with me. Given my years of experience, I can confidently state that there is no doubt in my mind that human spirits and other non-physical entities are real. Therefore, other people's skepticism doesn't bother me or deter me from believing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You told me you believe this about love...






Sure there is.. There are...

Sounds to me like you are seriously miscomprehending what I'm saying there.

I'm talking about "love" as a phenomenon which emerges from physical underpinnings.
Meaning that it is ultimately a physical thing with NO non-physical components.

Much like how the software Word is a collection of functions for text editing which also has physical underpinnings.
There is no "spiritual non-physical" component in the software.

I'm having more and more trouble comprehending what you are trying to say.