Correct, and Czarcasm is divinely insulting and condescening, deserves what I dish out and probably expects it.
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.
Sounds like you’re saying ignorance is bliss.
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.
I’m not, I’m saying the only meaning you will find is the meaning you assign.
Which is meaningless in any debate.
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?
I think that rather depends on what is being debated. I do believe you though when you say it is meaningless to you.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Until evidence shows otherwise, in real life ghosts are just fictional creatures used by grownups to scare children.
“Sciency like”? Really?
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.