I Heard My Father's 'Ghost' Yesterday.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

I think you're just shilling for the SDMB. Common, admit it.

What does this even mean?

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

What does this even mean?

It means that you aren't interested in the subject matter, your only interest is in winning the debate, or in this case, simply pretending to win by setting up a false argument. I could care less about proving ghosts exist to you or anyone, what I'm interested in is the significance of subjective experience. I could care less whether you think that is or isn't important. You keep wanting to turn this into a non-debate by demanding proof of ghosts, which you are unlikely to get from anyone living. Since I don't want to unnecessarily accuse you of being an ignorant doofus, I gave you a chance to exit gracefully by suggesting that your function at SDMB is to keep the replies rolling in by starting idiotic debates that have no chance of going anywhere but in a great big useless circle. Oh my god, you have succeeded! By.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

Well, this will shock you, you determine that by exploring the significance of the dream to you. It is afterall your dream, not mine. For you to ask anyone but yourself for the meaning is misguided.

Then nothing in this thread has meaning because your entire point is that only solipsism can validate a solipsistic experience and, since none of us can get inside another's head, we have no common ground on which to base discussion.

Originally Posted by mishagoe

I think you're just shilling for the SDMB. Common, admit it.

This seems to be a short accusation of trolling.

Originally Posted by mishagoe

It means that you aren't interested in the subject matter, your only interest is in winning the debate, or in this case, simply pretending to win by setting up a false argument. I could care less about proving ghosts exist to you or anyone, what I'm interested in is the significance of subjective experience. I could care less whether you think that is or isn't important. You keep wanting to turn this into a non-debate by demanding proof of ghosts, which you are unlikely to get from anyone living. Since I don't want to unnecessarily accuse you of being an ignorant doofus, I gave you a chance to exit gracefully by suggesting that your function at SDMB is to keep the replies rolling in by starting idiotic debates that have no chance of going anywhere but in a great big useless circle. Oh my god, you have succeeded! By.

And this seems to be a long-winded accusation of trolling.

Either way, don't do this again.

I am probably going to close this thread on the grounds that it really is not a debate and you really don't want a debate and the thread has now gotten too hostile to send to MPSIMS.

Give me a reason to leave it open.

[ /Moderating ]

[SiXSwordS]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

It means that you aren't interested in the subject matter, your only interest is in winning the debate....

I've seen variations on this argument from time-to-time and they always surprise me.

We're on an Internet message board, in a forum specifically for Debates (which may aspire to greatness)... But trying to win a given debate somehow nullifies the argument??

I don't buy the interpretation that those who do not share your view are not interested in the subject matter. It may mean that there are different interpretations of what the subject matter is.

But more likely, their interest in the subject matter comes down on another side of the issue than your own.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Then nothing in this thread has meaning because your entire point is that only solipsism can validate a solipsistic experience and, since none of us can get inside another's head, we have no common ground on which to base discussion.

This seems to be a short accusation of trolling.
And this seems to be a long-winded accusation of trolling.

Either way, don't do this again.

I am probably going to close this thread on the grounds that it really is not a debate and you really don't want a debate and the thread has now gotten too hostile to send to MPSIMS.

Give me a reason to leave it open.

[ /Moderating ]

Please close it down, this forum is extremely lopsided and repetitious. A few posts and then a pile on is the normal sequence of events on the SDMB, at least in GD. If all you are looking for are like minded participants then just please open another forum called, "we love the current paradigm that the world is just a big machine grinding its way through an endless meaningless process until it peters out." And then you can get like minded person agreeing with each other. There's nothing wrong with that and should be encouraged, like a club of like minded members, it's ok. And you know what, maybe the world is just a big impersonal machine winding along for all time. But even if it is, what's the point, what kind of an existence is that? Let in some fresh air into this mislabel thing called GD. Moderate a bit more and encourage debate instead of this endless pile on. It's boring and useless. So good luck and enjoy.

[SiXSwordS]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

Please close it down,

Wait a second....

Someone other than the OP can ask to have a thread closed based on a perception of some: normal sequence of events


Does the OP even get that dispensation?

[SiXSwordS]

Thanks LikeMindedPerson, you are humble and lovable.

I agree with you.
Can we form a club?
Confound this machine! Winding along--as it were--for all time. What was the point again?

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

No problem my friend. Reality: for you and me it is our experience of being in the world (Universe).

This is the nub of the whole disagreement in this thread - you've got your own personal definition of 'reality'. No wonder you can't reach agreement on anything else.

The common (and I would say, only useful) definition of reality is that which exists independently of our experience of it..

At least if you're talking about the reality of the universe, it is.

Other things - including perceptions - have their own qualities of reality - I poke you with a pin, you experience pain - this is tied to reality, despite being dependent on your perception, but you could dream I poked you with a pin, and the pain you dream is real only to you - it's not tied to reality (and you could dream something that is impossible in reality, for example, me poking you with the planet Neptune)

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

This is the nub of the whole disagreement in this thread - you've got your own personal definition of 'reality'. No wonder you can't reach agreement on anything else. The common (and I would say, only useful) definition of reality is [i]that which exists independently of our experience of it

Thanks for having a debate. I think the whole disagreement is not what my definition of reality is. Rather it is that I"m talking about personal, necessarily subject, experience and others want me to talk about objective reality. Having said that, you'll get no disagreement from me that an objective reality exists, we all participate in it and we all have bodies that function within it. However, our experience of the world is necessarily subjective and will always be subjective. In that sense, our first hand knowlege of the reality we exist in is our subjective experience of that reality. There is no way around it. Most everyone here is very keen on treating experiences as objective facts, requiring validation for their meaning. It turns out to be a very dissociative process, where even as you experience being in the world, you also set yourself apart from it as some external object of that world. I think that is ultimately damaging to the self. Hence, I am unlikely to get into a debate about whether or not ghosts or spirits exist, it is ultimately an unanswerable question. The real debate is, are subjective experiences (of which an example is -) of encountering the dead, meaningful to our existence in this world? I say they are, and need not be dismissed as halucinations. They should be taken seriously and accepted for what they are, because these experiences provide the meaning within which we exist as fully integrated participants in the world.

Other things - including perceptions - have their own qualities of reality - I poke you with a pin, you experience pain - this is tied to reality, despite being dependent on your perception, but you could dream I poked you with a pin, and the pain you dream is real only to you - it's not tied to reality (and you could dream something that is impossible in reality, for example, me poking you with the planet Neptune)

I think it woud more helpful to move the discussion away from poking me with the planet Neptune and into " how do we derive a meaningful existences, if not from our subjective experience of being in the world". I'm certainly not going to derive it by piggy backing on your subjective experiences, we all have to find meaning in our own existence, there is no objective measure for meaning when it comes to the self finding it's place in the world. Science and religion can't do that for us, we have to bring something to it, that something being our own subjective experience. So, don't knock it down too fast, it is all you have.

[simster]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

The real debate is, are subjective experiences (of which an example is -) of encountering the dead, meaningful to our existence in this world? I say they are, and need not be dismissed as haluciinations. They should be taken seriously and accepted for what they are, bcause these experiences provide the meaning within which we exist as fully integrated participants in the world.

.

<snipping mine>

How do you discern what is a halucination and what is a visit by the spirit of the dead? How do you tell the difference?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by SiXSwordS

Wait a second....

Someone other than the OP can ask to have a thread closed based on a perception of some: normal sequence of events


Does the OP even get that dispensation?

Anybody can ask for whatever they like - it doesn't mean they're going to get it. tomndebb didn't ask mishagoe if he wants the thread to be closed or not; he said if mishagoe wants the thread to remain open he needs to provide a reason, meaning he needs to offer something other than the solipsism argument. The OP hasn't participated in the thread since early on page 1, if that matters.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Anybody can ask for whatever they like - it doesn't mean they're going to get it. tomndebb didn't ask mishagoe if he wants the thread to be closed or not; he said if mishagoe wants the thread to remain open he needs to provide a reason, meaning he needs to offer something other than the solipsism argument. The OP hasn't participated in the thread since early on page 1, if that matters.

I don't have any particular interest in keeping it open or closing it down. If someone posts something productive, I'm happy to keep responding. I don't feel a particular need to justify keeping this thread open just for my sake.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by simster

<snipping mine>

How do you discern what is a halucination and what is a visit by the spirit of the dead? How do you tell the difference?

And to clarify: How do you(mishagoe, not the public at large) discern what is a hallucination and what is a visit by the spirit of the dead? How do you(mishagoe, not the public at large) tell the difference?

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by simster

<snipping mine>

How do you discern what is a halucination and what is a visit by the spirit of the dead? How do you tell the difference?

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for you. There is no objective measure you can use. It comes down to, what meaning you assign to it. Not that it is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be my meaning either. It is stricly speaking dependent on you, as the self-determing its meaning of the event. You may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, you may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that you can discern, meaningful within your life experience and therefore signficant and important.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for you. There is no objective measure you can use. It comes down to, what meaning you assign to it. Not that is is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be my meaning either. It is stricly speaking dependent on you, as the self, determing the meaning the event has. You may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, you may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that I can discern, meaningful within my life experience and therefor signficant and important.

He wasn't asking how he could tell the difference-the question is how you tell the difference.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

He wasn't asking how he could tell the difference-the question is how you tell the difference.

I realize this is a difficult leap for you to make so I'll help push you along:

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for me. There is no objective measure I can use. It comes down to, what meaning I assign to it. Not that is is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be Czarcasm's meaning either. It is strictly speaking dependent on me, as the self, determing the meaning the event has. I may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, I may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that I can discern, meaningful within my life experience and therefore signficant and important.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

I realize this is a difficult leap for you to make so I'll help push you along:

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for me. There is no objective measure I can use. It comes down to, what meaning I assign to it. Not that is is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be Czarcasm's meaning either. It is strictly speaking dependent on me, as the self, determing the meaning the event has. I may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, I may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that I can discern, meaningful within my life experience and therefore signficant and important.

I know that it is up to the individual to determine whether an encounter is a hallucination or not. What specifically lead you to believe that it wasn't a dream or a hallucination in the stories you told earlier in the thread? It would be appreciated if you could leave out the vague "it's up to the individual to determine..." non-answers.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I know that it is up to the individual to determine whether an encounter is a hallucination or not. What specifically lead you to believe that it wasn't a dream or a hallucination in the stories you told earlier in the thread? It would be appreciated if you could leave out the vague "it's up to the individual to determine..." non-answers.

The quality of the experience. It's a feeling Czarcasm. I'm sure you must know what these strange and wonderous things are, feelings? Yes/No?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

The quality of the experience. It's a feeling Czarcasm. I'm sure you must know what these strange and wonderous things are, feelings? Yes/No?

I know condescension when I see it.

[simster]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

I realize this is a difficult leap for you to make so I'll help push you along:

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for me. There is no objective measure I can use. It comes down to, what meaning I assign to it. Not that is is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be Czarcasm's meaning either. It is strictly speaking dependent on me, as the self, determing the meaning the event has. I may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, I may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that I can discern, meaningful within my life experience and therefore signficant and important.

None of this makes it anything other than a 'dream' - after all, it is your brain that is having the 'encounter', and therefore it will have 'some meaning' that your brain wants it to have.

It does not make it an encounter with the 'spirit of the dead' - unless you are equating 'things my brain makes up using memories and experiences with the person in question" as its 'spirit' - which, is a perfectly valid thing to do, but it does not make it an actual encounter with the dead (or 'spirit world' or whatever euphamism you want to call it).

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by simster

None of this makes it anything other than a 'dream' - after all, it is your brain that is having the 'encounter', and therefore it will have 'some meaning' that your brain wants it to have.

It does not make it an encounter with the 'spirit of the dead' - unless you are equating 'things my brain makes up using memories and experiences with the person in question" as its 'spirit' - which, is a perfectly valid thing to do, but it does not make it an actual encounter with the dead (or 'spirit world' or whatever euphamism you want to call it).

From who's point of view though? My experience may certainly not mean for you what it means for me. Certainly, my experience is that and only that: things my brain experiences being in the world. Isnt' that the basic assumption about experience, that these are mine and only mine? How could we even consider that to be a meaningful factor in my concluding: the encounter is with my brother's spirit or the encounter is a mis-reading of a noisy neighbor.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I know condescension when I see it.

Yes you do.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

The quality of the experience.

Can you describe those qualities in more words, perhaps? Right now, there's no basis for anyone to understand what you are saying. How would we distinguish what you felt versus a person with a brain tumor that is causing neurons to fire at random?

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Telemark

Can you describe those qualities in more words, perhaps? Right now, there's no basis for anyone to understand what you are saying. How would we distinguish what you felt versus a person with a brain tumor that is causing neurons to fire at random?

I could but I doubt it would constitute data of the kind I think you are interested in, i.e., a set of emotional descriptions, let's say, that you could then apply to other reported events where people feel they have had encounters. Let's say that I felt intrinsically that my brother's spirit came to visit me, how would I translate "felt intrinsically" to you so you would understand what that feels like and apply it to other people? Yet you probably know what "felt intrinsically" feels like to you. We understand it to be an experience of the sort where we know "in our being" what the experience is. It is certainly non-verbal, it is an integrative aspect of the meaning of the event.

[simster]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

From who's point of view though? My experience may certainly not mean for you what it means for me. Certainly, my experience is that and only that: things my brain experiences being in the world. Isnt' that the basic assumption about experience, that these are mine and only mine? How could we even consider that to be a meaningful factor in my concluding: the encounter is with my brother's spirit or the encounter is a mis-reading of a noisy neighbor.

The only time an experience can be said to be "yours and only yours" is when those experiences are fully within your own brain - as in a dream - because they cannot be shared.

If you are encountering a 'physical manifestation' of _anything_ then it must also interact with the world around it, and would therefore leave something behind that could be quantified.

If its all in your brain, and the experience cannot be quantified, shared, duplicated or researched - then it is a 'dream' or 'halucination' and only has meaning to you.

Your encounter with your 'brothers spirit' has no meaning beyond what it means to you - you cannot even 'prove' or 'provide evidence' beyond "what it means to you' that it was anything other than a run of the mil dream.

And that is fine - for you personally - it does not mean that 'spirits of the dead' are regularly conversing thru these 'dreams'.

[mishagoe]

[quote=simster;14725444]The only time an experience can be said to be "yours and only yours" is when those experiences are fully within your own brain - as in a dream - because they cannot be shared.[/QUOTE}

Experiences are always "yours and only yours." There are events that are experienced by more than one person. Each experience is still private. What we share are decriptions of the experience. And each person may or may not agree with a particular description.

If you are encountering a 'physical manifestation' of _anything_ then it must also interact with the world around it, and would therefore leave something behind that could be quantified.

It did, it left a "footprint", the experience.

If its all in your brain, and the experience cannot be quantified, shared, duplicated or researched - then it is a 'dream' or 'halucination' and only has meaning to you.

True, it could be any of those from an external reference point. The footprint is always private.

Your encounter with your 'brothers spirit' has no meaning beyond what it means to you - you cannot even 'prove' or 'provide evidence' beyond "what it means to you' that it was anything other than a run of the mil dream.

Yes, it's what I've been saying all along. But, the fact that it has a definit meaning for me is the significant difference. Just because you form a different meaning from an external reference point, does not change the intrinsic meaning for me.

And that is fine - for you personally - it does not mean that 'spirits of the dead' are regularly conversing thru these 'dreams'.

Agreed. And no, spirits do no regularly converse with me, there was just that one time, and it wasn't just any spirit, it was my brother's, so we can conjecture a special relationship might exist that would not exist between anyone else.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

I could but I doubt it would constitute data of the kind I think you are interested in, i.e., a set of emotional descriptions, let's say, that you could then apply to other reported events where people feel they have had encounters. Let's say that I felt intrinsically that my brother's spirit came to visit me, how would I translate "felt intrinsically" to you so you would understand what that feels like and apply it to other people? Yet you probably know what "felt intrinsically" feels like to you. We understand it to be an experience of the sort where we know "in our being" what the experience is. It is certainly non-verbal, it is an integrative aspect of the meaning of the event.

I have no idea what "felt intrinsically" means in this context, let alone what it means to you. We have plenty of examples of things that felt extremely real to the people who experienced them (night terrors, vivid dreams, hallucinations, loss of oxygen, so called NDEs) that leave people changed, but we have clear, logical, and reproducible biological causes for them.

Your experiences are extremely similar to things we can demonstrate are not caused by spirits, but you offer no differentiation for why we should think that yours are any different. If there were no external confirmation that people can easily be mistaken by things we understand and can reproduce you might have a case. But to be taken seriously, you first have to distinguish your experiences from those. The appeals to "felt intrinsically" and "in our being" are presuming facts not in evidence, plus they can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean.

Can you give us one specific item that you use to differentiate a "normal" dream from a visit by your brother's spirit?

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Telemark

I have no idea what "felt intrinsically" means in this context, let alone what it means to you. We have plenty of examples of things that felt extremely real to the people who experienced them (night terrors, vivid dreams, hallucinations, loss of oxygen, so called NDEs) that leave people changed, but we have clear, logical, and reproducible biological causes for them.

Your experiences are extremely similar to things we can demonstrate are not caused by spirits, but you offer no differentiation for why we should think that yours are any different. If there were no external confirmation that people can easily be mistaken by things we understand and can reproduce you might have a case. But to be taken seriously, you first have to distinguish your experiences from those. The appeals to "felt intrinsically" and "in our being" are presuming facts not in evidence, plus they can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean.

Can you give us one specific item that you use to differentiate a "normal" dream from a visit by your brother's spirit?

No I can't give you anything other than what I've already provided. You don't have to agree with me. These experiences apparently are ones that do not have a clear, logical and reproducible biological cause, and would only be of interest to people who aren't looking for external validation of the experience. So, I can't move the topic in the direction you are looking for.

[Mangetout]

We experience the world subjectively, for sure, but that's no basis for saying that we should treat all of our subjective experiences as equally valid - because we have tools and methods that can apply to help us sift out the wheat from the chaff - from a philosophical standpoint, we would have to admit that we can never be absolutely certain, but we must be able to *approach* an objective view of the world.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm
I know condescension when I see it.

Originally Posted by mishagoe

Yes you do.

You know mishagoe, this does nothing to persuade me to give any credence to what you have to say.

Debating by insulting rarely works.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

You know mishagoe, this does nothing to persuade me to give any credence to what you have to say.

Debating by insulting rarely works.

Correct, and Czarcasm is divinely insulting and condescening, deserves what I dish out and probably expects it.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

..... but we must be able to *approach* an objective view of the world.

And I'm arguing that we must not approach an objective view of the world in every instance. Or in every aspect of our lifes. This is true, in particular, when we are looking for a meaning to our existence. As an example. You are not going to find meaning to your existence in any book, religious or otherwise, but you may give meaning to the information the book presents. Counter example, I would not make plans to fly a rocket to the moon based on an intrinsic feeling about how to engineer it.

[Mangetout]

Sounds like you're saying ignorance is bliss.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

So, I can't move the topic in the direction you are looking for.

No, you can't. But you've also given no reason why anyone should take your experiences seriously. They are indistinguishable from dreams and hallucinations.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

Sounds like you're saying ignorance is bliss.

I'm not, I'm saying the only meaning you will find is the meaning you assign.

[simster]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

I'm not, I'm saying the only meaning you will find is the meaning you assign.

Which is meaningless in any debate.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Telemark

No, you can't. But you've also given no reason why anyone should take your experiences seriously. They are indistinguishable from dreams and hallucinations.

Did I ask that anyone else should take them seriously? I think I pretty much argued for the opposit. Whether you take them seriously or not is I think missing the point. Let's say you post to say you've fallen in love. I then ask for prove. You reply, my prove is that I feel that I'm in love. I don't have to take you seriously do I? Will you be any less in love just because you can't provide an objetive measure of the experience? It could be just a hallucination though, right?

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by simster

Which is meaningless in any debate.

I think that rather depends on what is being debated. I do believe you though when you say it is meaningless to you.

[simster]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

Did I ask that anyone else should take them seriously? I think I pretty much argued for the opposit. Whether you take them seriously or not is I think missing the point. Let's say you post to say you've fallen in love. I then ask for prove. You reply, my prove is that I feel that I'm in love. I don't have to take you seriously do I? Will you be any less in love just because you can't provide an objetive measure of the experience? It could be just a hallucination though, right?

Love can be 'proven' thru outward actions toward the recipient.

I even seem to recall that there are different chemical/signals that can be validated in a lab for those 'feelings' (meaning that something can be objectively measured) - something about chocolate simulating those responses as well.

So - try for a different analogy.

I think that rather depends on what is being debated. I do believe you though when you say it is meaningless to you

What is being debated here is wether or not people hear/see 'spirits' or 'ghosts' or if they are just dreams and halucinations.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by simster

Love can be 'proven' thru outward actions toward the recipient.

I even seem to recall that there are different chemical/signals that can be validated in a lab for those 'feelings' (meaning that something can be objectively measured) - something about chocolate simulating those responses as well.

So - try for a different analogy.

What is being debated here is wether or not people hear/see 'spirits' or 'ghosts' or if they are just dreams and halucinations.

Yes but -
"The hot spot is the teardrop-shaped VTA. When people newly in love were put in a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine and shown pictures of their beloved, the VTA lit up. Same for people still madly in love after 20 years.

The VTA is part of a key reward system in the brain.

"These are cells that make dopamine and send it to different brain regions," said Helen Fisher, a researcher and professor at Rutgers University. "This part of the system becomes activated because you're trying to win life's greatest prize - a mating partner."

One of the research findings isn't so complimentary: Love works chemically in the brain like a drug addiction."

So I maintain it isn't love, it is just an addiction to dopamine. Why not substitute beer and pretzels? Because the meaning is clearly not the same. Are you addicted to your loved ones or are you in love?

[simster]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

Yes but -
"The hot spot is the teardrop-shaped VTA. When people newly in love were put in a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine and shown pictures of their beloved, the VTA lit up. Same for people still madly in love after 20 years.

The VTA is part of a key reward system in the brain.

"These are cells that make dopamine and send it to different brain regions," said Helen Fisher, a researcher and professor at Rutgers University. "This part of the system becomes activated because you're trying to win life's greatest prize - a mating partner."

One of the research findings isn't so complimentary: Love works chemically in the brain like a drug addiction."

So I maintain it isn't love, it is just an addiction to dopamine. Why not substitute beer and pretzels? Because the meaning is clearly not the same. Are you addicted to your loved ones or are you in love?

You missed your own point - it was a measurable response.

Love is an addiction - it is a battlefield - its blind - it hurts - it makes you cry like a baby.

Crazy little thing, this thing called Love.

But the response is 'measurable' - and therefore 'quantifiable' in some way.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by simster

Which is meaningless in any debate.

Concur. This is equivalent to saying "Hey, HEY! listen up!...

....


....

nothing.

If the only meaning is the meaning we individually assign, you just pulled the rug out from under your own feet - whatever meaning you're trying to convey here is yours alone.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by simster

You missed your own point - it was a measurable response.

Love is an addiction - it is a battlefield - its blind - it hurts - it makes you cry like a baby.

Crazy little thing, this thing called Love.

But the response is 'measurable' - and therefore 'quantifiable' in some way.

Or possibly you missed the point. The meaning you attribute to that chemical interaction is still whatever you subjectively assign to it. You call it love or biological imperactive, or addiction - still your assigned meaning.

[simster]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

Or possibly you missed the point. The meaning you attribute to that chemical interaction is still whatever you subjectively assign to it. You call it love or biological imperactive, or addiction - still your assigned meaning.

Last attempt to hlp you understand -

The reaction of 'love' can be quantified - you can continue to try and re-define every thing till it fits what you want - but you are missing the point entirely in doing so.

We assign a particular idea behind a thing called 'love' - we questioned if it was 'just a feeling' or if something on the physical level was happening as well - and if it was - could it be measured.

Turns out, it can be.

I'm sure that similar physical responses can be measured for other emotional states.

Now - do the same to find the quantifiable difference between a 'dream' and a 'visit by spirit of dead person'

When you have that - THEN you will be able to say that you were _actually_ visited by the spirit and not just left with a 'feeling' that you had been.

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

Concur. This is equivalent to saying "Hey, HEY! listen up!...

....


....

nothing.

If the only meaning is the meaning we individually assign, you just pulled the rug out from under your own feet - whatever meaning you're trying to convey here is yours alone.

Well yea, duh. You guys keep running in huge circles claiming to have once again discovered that whatever meaning I assign is mine alone. If it is subjective it is mine alone. Whatever did you think I was saying when I said subjective experience. You thought I meant what? Well done. Is that all you wanted to be able to say? I'm pretty sure I made the point that what I'm arguing for is the importance of that self defined meaning. But I'm realizing that isn't necessarily a good thing to argue on this forum because you all want to argue something more sciency like, and while that can be cute for a while, misses real life by a mile.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

I'm pretty sure I made the point that what I'm arguing for is the importance of that self defined meaning.

Why should we treat your self defined meaning any differently than someone who has night terrors and thinks they were kidnapped by aliens? Do you care if your self defined meaning is contradicted by what we know about dreaming?

[mishagoe]

Originally Posted by simster

Last attempt to hlp you understand -

The reaction of 'love' can be quantified - you can continue to try and re-define every thing till it fits what you want - but you are missing the point entirely in doing so.

We assign a particular idea behind a thing called 'love' - we questioned if it was 'just a feeling' or if something on the physical level was happening as well - and if it was - could it be measured.

Turns out, it can be.

I'm sure that similar physical responses can be measured for other emotional states.

Now - do the same to find the quantifiable difference between a 'dream' and a 'visit by spirit of dead person'

When you have that - THEN you will be able to say that you were _actually_ visited by the spirit and not just left with a 'feeling' that you had been.

Well gads. I have to confess, in my personal day to day existence I never really thought much about measuring love. I was happy enough just to experience it. But you propose an interesting, if somewhat objectifying, perspective on this. It's just not for me as it turns out. So I leave you with the chemicals and will continue on my merry way.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

Well yea, duh. You guys keep running in huge circles claiming to have once again discovered that whatever meaning I assign is mine alone. If it is subjective it is mine alone. Whatever did you think I was saying when I said subjective experience. You thought I meant what? Well done. Is that all you wanted to be able to say? I'm pretty sure I made the point that what I'm arguing for is the importance of that self defined meaning. But I'm realizing that isn't necessarily a good thing to argue on this forum because you all want to argue something more sciency like, and while that can be cute for a while, misses real life by a mile.

Until evidence shows otherwise, in real life ghosts are just fictional creatures used by grownups to scare children.
"Sciency like"? Really?

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by mishagoe

Well yea, duh. You guys keep running in huge circles claiming to have once again discovered that whatever meaning I assign is mine alone. If it is subjective it is mine alone. Whatever did you think I was saying when I said subjective experience. You thought I meant what? Well done. Is that all you wanted to be able to say? I'm pretty sure I made the point that what I'm arguing for is the importance of that self defined meaning. But I'm realizing that isn't necessarily a good thing to argue on this forum because you all want to argue something more sciency like, and while that can be cute for a while, misses real life by a mile.

Your argument defeats itself - that's the point. If it's all subjective and personal, it's a waste of time telling us about it.