• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is love?

PJ,

Let's just say hypothetically you are wrong and that love is entirely material. Would it bother you?

What's in a name?
that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.

----Romeo and Juliet
Click to expand...
 
Fnord said:
Love is a shared delusion. We have no real ambition to find love; we don't want to find love at all! We just want to extend ourselves beyond other people's personal boundaries, and impose our own self-images upon them. We don't want to become their ideal, instead we want only a mirror to see our selves in. We strive so hard for true intimacy, but we're doomed to failure. We look ridiculous pursuing an impossible goal that we really don't need.
Click to expand...

Over 100 posts, and no-one attacked the one I made above.

:: It must be true.
 
What's in a name?
that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.

----Romeo and Juliet
Click to expand...

Not after he drinks the poison he wouldn't.
 
KingMerv00 said:
PJ,

Let's just say hypothetically you are wrong and that love is entirely material. Would it bother you?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to chat me up? ;)

Love, as the word is commonly used, refers to a conscious experience of said phenomenon.
Your 'entirely material' would probably need clearer definition. However, the way I'm taking it presents the problem that the entirely material explanation of reality should have no (but has to have due to the awkward existence of consciousness) place for or possibility of consciousness.
Thus in an entirely material reality love could not exist due to consciousness not existing. So the question of me consciously realising that love is entirely material does not exist in the entirely material reality.
So the problem you present cannot arise.
If you get my drift.
 
plumjam said:
Are you trying to chat me up? ;)

Love, as the word is commonly used, refers to a conscious experience of said phenomenon.
Your 'entirely material' would probably need clearer definition. However, the way I'm taking it presents the problem that the entirely material explanation of reality should have no (but has to have due to the awkward existence of consciousness) place for or possibility of consciousness.
Thus in an entirely material reality love could not exist due to consciousness not existing. So the question of me consciously realising that love is entirely material does not exist in the entirely material reality.
So the problem you present cannot arise.
If you get my drift.
Click to expand...

Your "drift" is unfounded assertion.

WHY is there no possibility of consciousness in a material world? That's the question you've avoided answering from the start.
 
plumjam said:
Are you trying to chat me up? ;)
Click to expand...

Well I don't spout poetry to just anybody.

Love, as the word is commonly used, refers to a conscious experience of said phenomenon.
Your 'entirely material' would probably need clearer definition. However, the way I'm taking it presents the problem that the entirely material explanation of reality should have no (but has to have due to the awkward existence of consciousness) place for or possibility of consciousness.
Thus in an entirely material reality love could not exist due to consciousness not existing. So the question of me consciously realising that love is entirely material does not exist in the entirely material reality.
So the problem you present cannot arise.
If you get my drift.
Click to expand...

Was that a yes? I'm asking for your emotional response.

I understand that in your opinion, love must be more than just chemicals. Fine. But let's say that everything you experience is simply boring ol' science. I can hypothetically grant that God exists. Surely you could hypothetically grant that love is "just" a drug.
 
JoeEllison said:
Your "drift" is unfounded assertion.

WHY is there no possibility of consciousness in a material world? That's the question you've avoided answering from the start.
Click to expand...

Because, put simply, if everything is material/mechanistic/deterministic the universe, life, man etc could get along just as happily without any entity having to be aware of it.
That such an inexplicable phenomenon as consciousness has been 'bolted on' to this reality requires some pretty convincing explanations (excuses) from materialists. Also, given that free will is ruled out by most of 'em, consciousness can play no causal role in the whole set up. So it exists when it doesn't have to, it plays no causal role, and yet it is the most remarkable phenomenon that we know of.

Time to go figure.
 
plumjam said:
Because, put simply, if everything is material/mechanistic/deterministic the universe, life, man etc could get along just as happily without any entity having to be aware of it.
That such an inexplicable phenomenon as consciousness has been 'bolted on' to this reality requires some pretty convincing explanations (excuses) from materialists. Also, given that free will is ruled out by most of 'em, consciousness can play no causal role in the whole set up. So it exists when it doesn't have to, it plays no causal role, and yet it is the most remarkable phenomenon that we know of.

Time to go figure.
Click to expand...

Translation: I personally find consciousness to be amazing. Therefore, magic.
 
Last edited:
plumjam said:
Because, put simply, if everything is material/mechanistic/deterministic the universe, life, man etc could get along just as happily without any entity having to be aware of it.
That such an inexplicable phenomenon as consciousness has been 'bolted on' to this reality requires some pretty convincing explanations (excuses) from materialists. Also, given that free will is ruled out by most of 'em, consciousness can play no causal role in the whole set up. So it exists when it doesn't have to, it plays no causal role, and yet it is the most remarkable phenomenon that we know of.

Time to go figure.
Click to expand...

:D You haven't explained ANYTHING.

Try again, this time with some thought involved.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Well I don't spout poetry to just anybody.
Click to expand...
I'm getting a warm tingle now :p


Was that a yes? I'm asking for your emotional response.
Click to expand...
It was a 'the question does not make sense to me as so far presented'.

I understand that in your opinion, love must be more than just chemicals. Fine. But let's say that everything you experience is simply boring ol' science. I can hypothetically grant that God exists. Surely you could hypothetically grant that love is "just" a drug.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that chemicals such as pheromones, serotonin, adrenalin etc.. have a causal role to play in the experience of love.
However, please listen up folks, there is what I consider a huge and basic error that I see materialists making again and again.
Just because particular chemicals/electrical activity can be identified within the human neurological system that very probably play a causal role in conveying a conscious experience, that in no way means that the object of that conscious experience is necessarily unreal.
So, for example: I look at a chair, and the light hitting my retina sets off a whole load of chemical reactions.
Would it be reasonable for a materialist to come along and say to me "Yeah, you think you saw a chair, but all it was was chemicals firing in your brain. So the chair is not real, it's just illusory, doesn't exist" ?

This is the logic taken up time and again by materialists to try to deny the reality of all kinds of objects of experience they'd prefer not to exist in any real (outside of just the neurological system) way.. such as God via religious experience, objective morality via the conscience, love via the emotions, objective beauty via the aesthetic/artistic sense...etc etc..

I hope some people might ponder on this one.

If you believe in mathematics and logic you'll have to. Because these too are of the same ilk. They refer to objective but not-verifiable-via-the-5-senses truths.
Does anyone here come along and say that mathematics and logic are just chemicals in the brain, with no real object?
No, I've never seen anyone say that.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
Translation: I personally find consciousness to be amazing. Therefore, magic.
Click to expand...

Also: consciousness doesn't have to exist as a requirement of a material universe, therefore it cannot exist.

Bad logic heaped on bad logic.
 
JoeEllison said:
:D You haven't explained ANYTHING.

Try again, this time with some thought involved.
Click to expand...

Joe, against my better judgement I thought I'd give you a break, and make an effort in your direction.
Predictably you have come back with your default dismissal, and your total lack of anything of substance, or at least interest, to contribute in the R&P subforum.
It's kind of a shame really. Having read your views in the politics forum I think you and I have an almost 100% agreement rate in that area of life.
Maybe in this subforum you can make more of an effort, beyond the usual knee-jerk dogmatism and closed-mindedness. I hold out hope for you, because you obviously are not an idiot in all spheres.

Peace and Love :p
 
plumjam said:
So, for example: I look at a chair, and the light hitting my retina sets off a whole load of chemical reactions.
Would it be reasonable for a materialist to come along and say to me "Yeah, you think you saw a chair, but all it was was chemicals firing in your brain. So the chair is not real, it's just illusory, doesn't exist" ?
Click to expand...

No, but it also wouldn't be sensible to say that there is a Chair Fairy, which is what you seem to be insisting on.
 
plumjam said:
I don't doubt that chemicals such as pheromones, serotonin, adrenalin etc.. have a causal role to play in the experience of love.
However, please listen up folks, there is what I consider a huge and basic error that I see materialists making again and again.
Just because particular chemicals/electrical activity can be identified within the human neurological system that very probably play a causal role in conveying a conscious experience, that in no way means that the object of that conscious experience is necessarily unreal.
So, for example: I look at a chair, and the light hitting my retina sets off a whole load of chemical reactions.
Would it be reasonable for a materialist to come along and say to me "Yeah, you think you saw a chair, but all it was was chemicals firing in your brain. So the chair is not real, it's just illusory, doesn't exist" ?
Click to expand...
Um, no. You've got that exactly backwards. That is the argument of an immaterialist. A materialist would know there are other tests we can perform to verify the objective existance of the chair besides just seeing or "experiencing" it...

...such as God via religious experience, objective morality via the conscience, love via the emotions, objective beauty via the aesthetic/artistic sense...etc etc..
Click to expand...
And when we try to apply those tests to these concepts, they fail for independent existance. Every single time.

I hope some people might ponder on this one.
Click to expand...
Most of us have, in much greater depth than you, because we are not hampered by the blinders of preconcieved conclusions from which you suffer.

If you believe in mathematics and logic you'll have to. Because these too are of the same ilk. They refer to objective but not-verifiable-via-the-5-senses truths.
Click to expand...
Mathematics and logic are human constructs, and exist as such. they are not subject to "5-senses-truth", but then that's not any part of materialism outside your fantasy. Senses can be fooled. That's why the other tests exist.

Does anyone here come along and say that mathematics and logic are just chemicals in the brain, with no real object?
Click to expand...
Do you think mathematics exists independently of a brain to conceive it? Where does "two" hang out when I'm not using it?
 
Last edited:
I hope some people might ponder on this one.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm insulted everytime Plumjam (and others like him) suggest that we simply haven't pondered this stuff before.

PJ, I HAVE pondered it and I have rejected it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom