Emotions in Science?

Your ancestor Monkey does not design computers. Does it?????

You have been warned about not thinking through your posts.You need to get back to specific responses. If you continue to clutter up threads with useless posts you will be suspended for awhile. Last warning!

Yes, they can laugh at me.They will. It does not matter. For your kind information, Psychology is not an empirical science. Yes, Psychologists do not believe in the spirit. They only believe in the physical body. To them, when the body dies, it is all over. May I ask you to answer this? How do you define life? What is life? Not all Psychologists believe what I wrote. The exception is with the Christian psychologists who believe that There is a Soul which makes lot of sense.This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 03-03-2006 06:30 PM

Well psychologists form hypotheses, test and observe, infer from data - seems empirical to me.what is life? I guess it would be something that is an organised biological system that exhibits metabolism, reproduction, growth, and responds to stimuli.Why are christian psychologists the only one's who would believe in a soul? Would a muslim psychologist?

quote:

---

However it is like painting a house with water. When we attempt to describe things that are spiritual,

---

How do you know that emotions are spiritual? There is every indication that they are physical in basis and no indication that they are not.

quote:

---

seeing things from a purely scientific perspective denies that we exist.

---

Don't understand this at all.

quote:

---

The very nature of science does not allow for the essence of emotion.

---

What is "the very essence of emotion"?

quote:

---

Science with emotion is no longer science. It becomes religion.

---

How so?

quote:

---

Science does not allow for or will it ever recognize emotion or intent.

---

Um, then what are the Psycholoists who study, for example, motivation and emotion, do all day?

quote:

---

It cannot...that is both it's weakness and it's strength.
When using science to explore and define what makes us human we need to recognize that by nature it dehumanizes us.

---

How?

quote:

---

In any case, personal encounter with God cannot equal the electrical stimulation or for that matter experience with drugs. Chemcials or electrical stimulation cannot substitute for the real thing i.e: God.

---

How can you tell the difference?

quote:

---

For your kind information, Psychology is not an empirical science.

---

It most certainly is an empirical science.

Hum. Monkeys are not ancestors to humans. That is a strawman of someone who does not understand evolution.HUmans and monkeys share a common ancestor. Monkeys do use tools though. It is just that in the human species, the brain has evolved to be more specialised than in the monkey.More importantly, they seem to share the same emotions as humans. They socialise, they bond, they show anger and jealousy. Are they exactly the same emotions as humans?? I don't know. It does cause them to behave in a similar manner.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-04-2006 09:35 AM

I suppose that depends on whether you are talking about clinical psychology (and other forms of counseling), or about research psychology.Although research psychology doesn't often make the dramatic breakthroughs we have seen in physical sciences, it is nevertheless an empirical science.As for clinical psychology, it seems that just about anyone can hang out a shingle declaring themselves to offer psychological counseling, so it is harder to say to what extent empirical science is involved. That seems a broad generalization, particularly if you are including clinicial psychologists in the class you refer to.

Yes, I have few friends who are practising Clincial Psychologists. they believe in the spirit. Then there is another group which only believes in the physical body and nothing else.

I have only experienced God. I can talk about this. My brain has not been electrically or therapeutically stimulated. The atheistic neurophysiologist wants to prove that whatever anyone calls as God experience is not really thatone. But is nothing but electircal stimulation of brain. Chances are that after I had experienced God, if I subject myself to electrical stimuation, I may be devastated. I am not intending to do this either. I do not need drugs( I have already been devastated by prescription drugs) anymore.

I am glad that at least you had defined the characteristics of living organisms. Many biologists can't even do this. At this time, we can only define life. Anyway, our definitions of life stop here. We do not know what it is. But, we can only speculate it. I am going to give an example. I am not sure if I had already posted it elewhere.Let us imagine that I was in the twin otwer on 911. When the alarms went off, I ran out and fell down. I was clinically declared dead. Before this event, I had a thinking mind. After this event ( the ambulance has not yert arrived) did I still have thinking mind? No certainly not. When I was clinically declared dead, I lost something. My mind was no longer the mind. It became a dead piece of brain tissue. Question: is mind ,the brain? OR Is mind the brain? Answer is: brain + something = mind. Could this "Something" be the life?

something = biological metabolism/activity?There is no real separation of mind and body. If you want to speculate on an eternal spirit/soul, fair enough but it won't be science.Does bacteria have a soul? It has that 'something'...This message has been edited by melatonin, 03-04-2006 06:30 PM

inkorrect This is incorrect, inkorrekt, because clinical death is not tissue death. The tissue death cannot begin before cellular death in brain tissue which does not occur irrevocably until after approximately 5 minutes of oxygen deprivation. It is interesting to note that the mind itself is altered sometimes by the damage induced by the condition of clinical death.If the mind is seperate from the brain and immune to damage then why does this occur?True death is known as biological death resulting from damage to the cells that cannot be repaired.This message has been edited by sidelined, Sat, 2006-03-04 04:44 PM

quote:

---

I have only experienced God. I can talk about this. My brain has not been electrically or therapeutically stimulated.

---

Then how do you know it isn't exactly the same feeling when you "experience God" with or without electical or other stimulation of that region of the brain?

quote:

---

The atheistic neurophysiologist wants to prove that whatever anyone calls as God experience is not really thatone.

---

I don't know of any good scientist that "sets out" to prove such a thing, because it it impossible to prove a negative. A scientist only works with naturalistic explanations because they are operating under the rules of science, be they believer or unbeliever.

quote:

---

But is nothing but electircal stimulation of brain. Chances are that after I had experienced God, if I subject myself to electrical stimuation, I may be devastated. I am not intending to do this either. I do not need drugs( I have already been devastated by prescription drugs) anymore.

---

That's great, but you still haven't answered the question;How do you tell the difference between a "real" experience of God and a artificially stimulated experience of God?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-04-2006 08:15 PM