Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[vulcanlogician]

I don't know. Why would it be relevant?

We might have the same conclusions about those things. If so, then it [might] be relevant because it suggests we have a similar process for forming conclusions about those things.

Like, maybe I'm not some empiricism-denying "whacko." Or maybe I am. I guess time will tell.

 

[Audie]

Is love true? What scientific evidence do we have for love? How do we measure it in science?

Do you mean "is it true that love exists"?

What do you mean by "square with"?


There is nothing about emotions
that is somehow incompatible with, or
contrary to anything about science.

The existence of emotions is
very much real and thoroughly evidenced.

Go back to what i said and try for a real exception.

 

[MikeF]

Is love true? What scientific evidence do we have for love? How do we measure it in science?

Love is an abstract representation of an instinctual human behavior, one of several abstract representations that we categorize as emotions.

As we are talking about animal behavior, specifically Homo sapiens, it would fall under the purview of biology to fully describe what is going on inside the brain. Of course, with the instinct having been abstracted, it is now much more than a reflexive instinctual response, so there is psychology and sociology at play beyond the base instinct.

 

[Audie]

I'm not trying to sell homeopathy here. I said before that pseudoscience can be readily dismissed. It's just that empiricism doesn't cover all the knowable stuff.

I mean, I could bring up mathematics, but proponents of scientism have this rule: yeah, math counts too.

I mean, it makes sense. But I don't know how they think that a mathematical theorem can be true when it takes ZERO empirical observation to prove a theorem.

To be fair, you COULD prove a mathematical theorem empirically. So I don't harp on math so much. But it's worth pointing out that theorems don't NEED empirical observation to be proven. All I'm saying is that there are objective realities that can be proven or disproven without empiricism. And, depending upon one's definition, that can possibly count as a strike against scientism.

Review the meaning of " square with",
then what i said.
Then see if you can think of a true ststement
that is invompatible with evidence.

Perhaps you can think of something.
I cant.
But i allowed for it with "Tend not to be true".

I doubt you can falsify that.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Is love true? What scientific evidence do we have for love? How do we measure it in science?

****. You're right. And the most depressing thing is, we don't have anything like "literature" that can speak about love. We are just lost in this loveless world where only science can give an accurate description of reality.

I kinda wish that human literature was an actual thing and not just some bull**** idea I came up with. Because if humans actually wrote stories, myths, and parables, you might discover the idea that humans experience love at an experiential level.

But, alas, there is NO good evidence that humans experience love at an experiential level. Sure, an explosion of chemical reactions happen. That much is documented. But I highly doubt there is an accompanying experience that goes along with those chemical explosions.

There is absolutely no reason to think so. And even if such experiences existed, we could determine from the outset that they were meaningless chemical processes.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Review the meaning of " square with",
then what i said.

I know very well what "square with" means. Have you considered everything it could possibly mean?

 

[Audie]

I know very well what "square with" means. Have you considered everything it could possibly mean?

Ok, end of conversation.

 

[Bear Wild]

****. You're right. And the most depressing thing is, we don't have anything like "literature" that can speak about love. We are just lost in this loveless world where only science can give an accurate description of reality.

I kinda wish that human literature was an actual thing and not just some bull**** idea I came up with. Because if humans actually wrote stories, myths, and parables, you might discover the idea that humans experience love at an experiential level.

But, alas, there is NO good evidence that humans experience love at an experiential level. Sure, an explosion of chemical reactions happen. That much is documented. But I highly doubt there is an accompanying experience that goes along with those chemical explosions.

There is absolutely no reason to think so. And even if such experiences existed, we could determine from the outset that they were meaningless chemical processes.

So do you personally think love is real?

 

[vulcanlogician]

So do you personally think love is real?

Sure. Why not? And not only do I think it's real for humans. It's real for baboons and antelopes and stuff.

 

[Bear Wild]

Love is an abstract representation of an instinctual human behavior, one of several abstract representations that we categorize as emotions.

As we are talking about animal behavior, specifically Homo sapiens, it would fall under the purview of biology to fully describe what is going on inside the brain. Of course, with the instinct having been abstracted, it is now much more than a reflexive instinctual response, so there is psychology and sociology at play beyond the base instinct.

So do you believe love is real and how do we measure it in science?

 

[MikeF]

All thought is "abstract thought". All thought is subjectively generated even when it's triggered by an objective experience. All thought exists in the "real world" because the real world is itself, a thought.

I agree, all thought is abstract thought. I agree that in terms of an individual, all thought generated by that individual is subjective, even when triggered by an objective experience. Of course now you have admitted there is such a thing as an objective experience.

All thoughts exist in the real world because those with thoughts exist in the real world. The real world exists whether we, personally, are around to experience it or have thoughts about it. There is a world outside the mind whether or not you want to acknowledge it. Up to you.

There is no "real world independent of abstract thought". "Real" and "world" and "Independent of" are all themselves abstract thoughts. There is no real or unreal anything except as an abstract thought. There is no world that is not a whole collection of abstract thoughts banded together into one meta-though. There is no perception/conception of independence that isn't abstracted from the basic concept of cooperation.

Except we are not stuck in our own heads, we get to compare the subjective experiences of millions or billions of people and across an immense expanse of recorded history. On top of that, we are clever enough to come up with ways to experiment and play with reality in ways that provides us reliable and objective information about the real world and how it works. You can deny this all you want, or say that it is only functionality that doesn't represent "the whole thing", but all we can do is fiddle with our functionality and it is only this physical existence that has emerged to date. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation.

 

[Bear Wild]

Do you mean "is it true that love exists"?

What do you mean by "square with"?


There is nothing about emotions
that is somehow incompatible with, or
contrary to anything about science.

The existence of emotions is
very much real and thoroughly evidenced.

Go back to what i said and try for a real exception.

So how do we know emotions are real? What is our scientific method of studying emotions such as love?

 

[Nakosis]

So do you believe love is real and how do we measure it in science?

If we could figure out an easy way to measure the dopamine surge, oxytocin and vasopressin released into one's system when they are around the person they love.

Figure this out and when your wife asks if you still love her she'll be able to verify it.

Rapid changes in extracellular dopamine concentrations in freely moving or anesthetized rats can be detected using fast-scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV). Background-subtracted FSCV is a real-time electrochemical technique that can monitor neurochemical transmission in the brain on a subsecond timescale, while providing chemical information on the analyte. Also, this voltammetric approach allows for the investigation of the kinetics of release and uptake of molecules in the brain. This chapter describes, completely, how to make these measurements and the properties of FSCV that make it uniquely suitable for performing chemical measurements of dopaminergic neurotransmission in vivo.
Real-Time Chemical Measurements of Dopamine Release in the Brain

 

[Audie]

So how do we know emotions are real? What is our scientific method of studying emotions such as love?

I dont consider the first a real question nor the second
relevant to my original statement that things
not compatible with science tend not to be true.

If you know otherwise, show me, dont ask me.

 

[Bear Wild]

I dont consider the first a real question nor the second
relevant to my original statement that things
not compatible with science tend not to be true.

If you know otherwise, show me, dont ask me.

Now here I was thinking I was asking a simple question about an area of human experience that science has difficulty with and is not so compatible with the scientific method but have provided evidence of my fallacy that my question was clearly as irrelevant. I thought love was a subjective experience in which science had difficulty with. I must be wrong but if you could help with any of the studies that clearly shows how love is true I would be appreciative. I assume you have some in mind. Thanks.

 

[Bear Wild]

If we could figure out an easy way to measure the dopamine surge, oxytocin and vasopressin released into one's system when they are around the person they love.

Figure this out and when your wife asks if you still love her she'll be able to verify it.

Rapid changes in extracellular dopamine concentrations in freely moving or anesthetized rats can be detected using fast-scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV). Background-subtracted FSCV is a real-time electrochemical technique that can monitor neurochemical transmission in the brain on a subsecond timescale, while providing chemical information on the analyte. Also, this voltammetric approach allows for the investigation of the kinetics of release and uptake of molecules in the brain. This chapter describes, completely, how to make these measurements and the properties of FSCV that make it uniquely suitable for performing chemical measurements of dopaminergic neurotransmission in vivo.
Real-Time Chemical Measurements of Dopamine Release in the Brain

I am familiar with the studies but it is still hard to connect with the subjective experience in why and how this process creates the full experience and behavior in someone who feels love. I may be slightly out of date one this and appreciate the physiology presented.

 

[MikeF]

So do you believe love is real and how do we measure it in science?

Well, that depends on which of the concepts we attach to that label you are referring to.

Is it the love described when we say we love chocolate ice cream?

Is it the love of sexual attraction and desire towards someone with who we have yet to have a relationship?

Is it the love associated with sexual intercourse?

Is it the love we use to describe our relationship with someone with whom we have a strong attachment (for whatever reason or relationship) such their absence results in sadness and a sense of loss?

Might it be the extreme Biblical love that instructs us to love our enemy?

All but the last one are a purely subjective expression of the one declaring a particular love. As such, there is no real way to quantify, we can simply document what the subject reports in a given context and compare that to what others describe in similar circumstances. As an abstract and subjective concept, anyone can define and use it any way that they wish. We are simply left to catalog all the ways it is used and then possibly make some broad generalizations on the various ways people attach meaning to this word.

As to the last example, I am highly skeptical that any individual can truly love an "enemy" as they do those with whom they have formed strong attachments, or feel the same strong emotions involved in sexual attraction. Imagine being tortured and truly feeling those other types of "love" for the torturer. Not possible in my view. This to me is a fiction, more of an admonishment to behave "as if" you loved your enemy despite them being your enemy.

In all these subjective expressions of abstract concepts labeled "love", there are actual underlying neuro-physiological activities involved in what the subject is describing or labeling. What has been done and is currently being done to better understand these underlying neuro-physiological activities, I have no idea.

 

[Nakosis]

I am familiar with the studies but it is still hard to connect with the subjective experience in why and how this process creates the full experience and behavior in someone who feels love. I may be slightly out of date one this and appreciate the physiology presented.

So I think you are asking how dopamine causes you to "feel" something...

It doesn't. Dopamine causes you "want" something. As I understand it is a chemical code that causes you to want closeness to something. Like if you were to program a mobile robot every time it saw a particular image to move closer to it. The robot does know why it makes the choice to move towards this object every time however it retains the memory of always doing so.

These chemicals are the programing language of the brain. Like the chemical vasopressin instructs you to display protective behavior. If it were missing, parents would not receive the instruction to protect their children.

So perhaps we don't actually "feel" love. We are just following a chemical code which causes a certain behavior which we call this behavior love.

The feeling part is an illusion. Not that you don't experience the illusion of feeling love, only that it is not what your perception of it is.

Love is a set of chemical instructions(code) which causes you to behave in a certain way. We only perceive it as something that it isn't.

Illusion like a mirage. If you see a mirage you cannot not see it. It is real to your perception. However it is not as you perceive it to be. In the case of a mirage, we know the physics which causes us to "see" what is not there.

So love is a mirage. At some point, just like a mirage, we will understand the physical process of why we seem to be feeling these emotions as we go about life. IOW we don't "feel" anything. We just perceive these chemical instruction being process by the brain as feelings.

This is how I view it from everything I've learned about it so far. If new information comes along I might have to change that view.

 

[PureX]

I agree, all thought is abstract thought. I agree that in terms of an individual, all thought generated by that individual is subjective, even when triggered by an objective experience. Of course now you have admitted there is such a thing as an objective experience.

Perception is conception. Reality is not objective vs subjective. It’s physical sensation-becomes-conceptual ideation. And this is all one phenomena. And the result is our own personal experience and understanding of ‘what is’. There is no experiencing or understanding anything apart from human cognition. This materialist ideal that people hold onto about a world separate from themselves that is the true reality is just plain nonsensical.

All thoughts exist in the real world because those with thoughts exist in the real world. The real world exists whether we, personally, are around to experience it or have thoughts about it.

There is no possible way for any of us to ever verify that, and it’s a completely moot and therefor pointless theory, anyway. But you are so fully convinced of it that you can’t see anything else.

There is a world outside the mind whether or not you want to acknowledge it. Up to you.

Not that you or I or anyone else will ever know of. And what possible difference could it make, anyway, since no one would ever know of it? Once we eliminate human cognition, it’s all irrelevant. And meaningless.

Except we are not stuck in our own heads, we get to compare the subjective experiences of millions or billions of people and across an immense expanse of recorded history.

Agreement changes nothing. We are all still humans experiencing the great mystery both together and separately.

On top of that, we are clever enough to come up with ways to experiment and play with reality in ways that provides us reliable and objective information about the real world and how it works.

All we accomplish are mutualized fantasies that we jointly presume to call reality.

You can deny this all you want, or say that it is only functionality that doesn't represent "the whole thing", but all we can do is fiddle with our functionality and it is only this physical existence that has emerged to date. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation.

And you can keep trying to pretend you have some magical “objective” access to inerrant truth, but you don’t. We don’t. And we never will.

 

[Bear Wild]

So I think you are asking how dopamine causes you to "feel" something...

It doesn't. Dopamine causes you "want" something. As I understand it is a chemical code that causes you to want closeness to something. Like if you were to program a mobile robot every time it saw a particular image to move closer to it. The robot does know why it makes the choice to move towards this object every time however it retains the memory of always doing so.

These chemicals are the programing language of the brain. Like the chemical vasopressin instructs you to display protective behavior. If it were missing, parents would not receive the instruction to protect their children.

So perhaps we don't actually "feel" love. We are just following a chemical code which causes a certain behavior which we call this behavior love.

The feeling part is an illusion. Not that you don't experience the illusion of feeling love, only that it is not what your perception of it is.

Love is a set of chemical instructions(code) which causes you to behave in a certain way. We only perceive it as something that it isn't.

Illusion like a mirage. If you see a mirage you cannot not see it. It is real to your perception. However it is not as you perceive it to be. In the case of a mirage, we know the physics which causes us to "see" what is not there.

So love is a mirage. At some point, just like a mirage, we will understand the physical process of why we seem to be feeling these emotions as we go about life. IOW we don't "feel" anything. We just perceive these chemical instruction being process by the brain as feelings.

View attachment 87897​

This is how I view it from everything I've learned about it so far. If new information comes along I might have to change that view.

I actually think we do feel love but is is not just a that dopamine pattern by a far more complex interaction of our conscious and unconscious. This complexity of integrating cortical, subcortical and responses from the body are not adequately accessible to our science method of study. They are real experiences and not mirages. Even our new functional mri are not capable of imaging.