Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ajsmith365, Are you somehow in personal doubt that there is any such thing as human emotions?
HistorianDude, you need to read my post - post #199. Obviously, since both you and DC at the Ridge have come to the same interpretation that I am questioning human emotion, I must have mis-conveyed my message OR you two did not follow the quotes in the threads that lead to this TOTALLY off-topic discussion.
In summary, you should read posts #156, #191, #193, and #195. Human emotion does exist. But, just because something exists, or not exist, does not mean that there is ALWAYS an accurate scientific or tangible measure of said object. I hope this provides clarity and ends this sidebar discussion. If y'all need more clarity, please start a thread on the subject. I'm more interested in hearing about these "American Values" that us immigrants/forced immigrants have so efficiently destroyed.
HistorianDude, you need to read my post - post #199. Obviously, since both you and DC at the Ridge have come to the same interpretation that I am questioning human emotion, I must have mis-conveyed my message OR you two did not follow the quotes in the threads that lead to this TOTALLY off-topic discussion.
Actually, you are jumping to a conclusion. As such you are rather egregiously missing the point.
You are the one who used human emotion as an example of something that "cannot be proved." My immediate thought was to respond by showing you Positron Emission Tomography images that establish your comment to simply be factually untrue. But suspecting you might be of a more mystical bent, I realized that the 1st person experience of emotion is a more powerful argument than the third person observation of brain function.
So instead I asked my question... twice. Needless to say, I'm still waiting for an answer. I sure didn't get one here. It probably would have been easier than looking up all those older posts to point me towards... but hey. That was your call.
As a general rule, when one uses an example, one should be ready to defend it. So I ask again my first question to get the conversation rolling.
Are you somehow in personal doubt that there is any such thing as human emotions?
LOL. I never intended a CIVILized insult...Do you believe people experience emotions?
I have carefully avoided "soulful" discussions, since I don't consider them to be relevant to this thread...
If you don't believe that people experience emotions, then you would do well to argue this point, rather than to engage in personal attacks. I would be very interested in your argument. I find intellectual ripostes very stimulating.
Last time I address this, I hope and pray. Please read my post, #203.
DC at the Ridge, I do owe you an apology; regardless of your intent. You are right, and I got carried away. I do apologize. I stand by my explanation, but would like to retract calling you delusional.
However, if you would re-read my posts, I NEVER, EVER doubted human emotion. Again, see post #203; then, hopefully we can all get back on topic. And, even if we still disagree, I would like to let you know that it will be with the utmost respect. Sincerest apologies...my man!
But, you do state that, and I quote: I have carefully avoided "soulful" discussions, since I don't consider them to be relevant to this thread. But why not? If you read the threads and why/how my original post on "emotions" came about, you will find the discussion on the soul as equally relevant. But, it may be because you have no answer for it as I have posed it in this thread. No disrespect, but a factual comment. Now, let's get back on topic.
Last edited by ajsmith365; 02-16-2011 at 04:56 PM..
Actually, you are jumping to a conclusion. As such you are rather egregiously missing the point.
You are the one who used human emotion as an example of something that "cannot be proved." My immediate thought was to respond by showing you Positron Emission Tomography images that establish your comment to simply be factually untrue. But suspecting you might be of a more mystical bent, I realized that the 1st person experience of emotion is a more powerful argument than the third person observation of brain function.
So instead I asked my question... twice. Needless to say, I'm still waiting for an answer. I sure didn't get one here. It probably would have been easier than looking up all those older posts to point me towards... but hey. That was your call.
As a general rule, when one uses an example, one should be ready to defend it. So I ask again my first question to get the conversation rolling.
Are you somehow in personal doubt that there is any such thing as human emotions?
For you, no apologies. You are truly one for the ages.
To prove something means you can tangibly identify and isolate that which you are analyzing. Scientifically, you should be able to, elementally, classify said object.
Even if your claims of emotions being able to be "proven" at this very moment, is true, that is not to say the way they are proving it is correct. Moreover, it could be a bad example, but you being the great historian that you are, thus the name, you should be able to use your imagination and understand where one is going. Of course I believe in emotions as you can see from my anger then remorse towards DC at the Ridge. With you, I think I am able to prove frustration as I can, literally, see smoke coming out of my nostrils while laser beams emit from my retinas. Moreover, the smiley face emoticon is further proof that I do belief in emotions; and, possibly, that emotions do exist.
Okay, supposing that emotions can be proven, and taking this example off the table since you cannot get past this one example, prove that the human soul exists, prove that there is an afterlife as so many NDEs (near death experiences) have described; prove miraculous healings of those PROVEN by medicine and science to be terminally ill and given up on by the precious institutions that you hold as the moral, validating authority.
Since you are demanding an answering to a question that is so off-kilter, I'll entertain you..."I know that human emotion exists; I cannot prove it." Which validates me playing devil's advocate to Ghostrider's response to Violett demanding her to prove something that may or may not be able to be proven, yet certainly exists or stands to be true. In honesty, I answered your question both before and after you posed it; you just did not take the time to read it. Likewise, you find it too difficult to go back and read a thread that you aimlessly jumped to conclusions on; thus, firing off your post without fully understanding the context of the conversation. Some cultural people call that being all up in the Kool-Aid and not knowing the flavor. But, your continual rebuttal on "emotions" without knowing the context of the conversation and your refusal to admit that science can be a good indicator but not an absolute validating tool leads me to question your objectivity and ability to admit when you are wrong (a characteristic that man, even scientists, tend to possess).
But, one thing I can prove is that you are truly one for the ages. A thread about multiculturalism has been turned into a debate on science and emotions. Truly, one for the ages. Again, like you, I am awaiting an answer to my questions (see paragraph 4). But, please do it in another thread on human emotion and science, as we both have done our fair share in contributing to the deterioration of this thread.
Last edited by ajsmith365; 02-16-2011 at 05:11 PM..
To prove something means you can tangibly identify and isolate that which you are analyzing. Scientifically, you should be able to, elementally, classify said object.
Seems consistent with what has been written above...
Quote:
Even if your claims of emotions being able to be "proven" at this very moment, is true, that is not to say the way they are proving it is correct.
Oh my heavens...
Despite the horrendous mangling of that sentence (as a felonious sentence mangler I point this out only to clarify) am I to take your meaning to be, that because we can prove that emotions exist we can not prove what those emotions are. How am I doing?
If that is what you were trying to say, then you are absolutely wrong, we can prove that certain biophysical responses can identify particular emotions, in repeatable experiments.
Quote:
Okay, supposing that emotions can be proven, and taking this example off the table since you cannot get past this one example, prove that the human soul exists, prove that there is an afterlife as so many NDEs (near death experiences) have described; prove miraculous healings of those PROVEN by medicine and science to be terminally ill and given up on by the precious institutions that you hold as the moral, validating authority.
Oh my heavens part II
This turning into one of those classic move the goal post creationist discussions e.g., Ok you can flash a card of Bin Laden in front of a 9/11 survivor, measure their neurological response and then when you ask a randomly selected group of 9/11 survivors and put them through the same protocol develop a baseline for responses and see if they correlate with both the objective and subjective evidence and you've got a scientific fact!
Now we have to prove that their is an afterlife, identify the origin and status of the Soul, while explaining the origin of not only man but god him/herself!
For you, no apologies. You are truly one for the ages.
I have that reputation. Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajsmith
To prove something means you can tangibly identify and isolate that which you are analyzing. Scientifically, you should be able to, elementally, classify said object.
And so... do you have a problem identifying, isolating and classifying emotions?
Because I myself was completely unaware of there being a huge conceptual gap there among the scientists who study them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajsmith365
Even if your claims of emotions being able to be "proven" at this very moment, is true, that is not to say the way they are proving it is correct.
See... now this is where I begin to question your confidence in your own argument. Because rather than defending it, you are looking for general rationalizations that both take you off the hook from any defense and, if true, further declares all scientific effort thoroughly impotent.
And yet... we are surrounded by the evidence that science actually does work. In fact, it is the single most pragmatically productive enterprise in all of human history. So... while it is true that not everything science says is probably correct, there is good reason to suspect it gets a lot of very important stuff pretty close to right.
Core to that reality is the ultimate uselessness of the very word "proof." In point of fact, outside of mathematics there is really no such thing. The closest we get is (in the words of the late Stephen jay Gould) "so well confirmed that it is perverse to withhold provisional assent."
Too squishy for you? I can't help that. This is the human condition.
But in that same sense... unless one has been asked to prove a negative (which she was not asked to do) the assertion that "some things cannot be proved" is little more than poltroonish hand waving. It is the admission that one is actually unwilling to even try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajsmith365
Okay, supposing that emotions can be proven, and taking this example off the table since you cannot get past this one example, prove that the human soul exists, prove that there is an afterlife as so many NDEs (near death experiences) have described; prove miraculous healings of those PROVEN by medicine and science to be terminally ill and given up on by the precious institutions that you hold as the moral, validating authority.
I'm sorry, but at this point you have rather completely lost me. Because I am of the informed opinion that if any of these things actually did exist, they should be rather easy to "prove." Of course we both know that they have not been. We are both excruciatingly aware that the most tentative effort to test for any of these things has produced exactly no evidence in their favor.
This is (in my considered view) not because "they can't be proven," but because they are probably not true.
In other words your examples just went from bad to abysmal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajsmith365
Since you are demanding an answering to a question that is so off-kilter, I'll entertain you..."I know that human emotion exists; I cannot prove it."
I can assure you that any one person's personal inability to prove something is not a good indication that others cannot either. So, the second clause of your answer is entirely superfluous to the conversation.
Now that we have established that you "know that human emotion exists," the follow up questions are two fold:
The first is... if you already know they exist, why would you demand some other proof?
The second is... since you already know they exist, why would you suspect that other people do not and thereby need proof themselves?
But... stereotypes are not necessarily racial. We stereotype genders, ages, professions, even different sides of our own family. The 150 person threshold proposed by this study is pretty much independent of the issue of race.
It's not independent of racism. The law of 150 is an umbrella rule. Racism just happens to be one of the ism's that falls under it.
One after another European Leader has come out and stated that multiculturalism has failed in their countries. These include both moderate and conservative leaders in Germany, France and Germany.
Do you think a major American Political Leader would be so bold as to make this statement about what is happening in America. (A balkanized society, especially outside the workplace)
Should we admit as a nation that multiculturalism has failed as America has become more ethnically and culturally diverse? Or do you believe that multiculturalism is a great success both here and in Europe?
If you're an American Indian, you could certainly make a strong argument that multiculturalism was a bad idea!
If you're not, and therefore a part of the multicultural immigrant groups, its probably been pretty good for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moreover, the smiley face emoticon is further proof that I do belief in emotions; and, possibly, that emotions do exist.
