What is love?

[plumjam]

It is just a matter of making up stupid things, something you are a great fan of. Forget real scientists, with real intelligence and evidence.

You prefer some moron who makes up stupidity, because stupidity that no intelligent person accepts makes you feel special. Your problem is not with evidence, your problem is with feelings of inferiority in the face of people smarter than you.

No Joe. That definitely isn't a convincing definition of love.

 

[Robin]

Where is awareness?

Between our ears.

 

[Robin]

Where is "chairness"?

In Scotland, near Aberdeen I think.

 

[Robin]

No Joe. That definitely isn't a convincing definition of love.

I don't know if I have a convincing definition of love either, but I know one thing. If someone thinks that a magnet and iron is a striking example of love at any level at all, then he does not know love. Not at least as I understand it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yawn.
That-which-is-not-the-other-magnet is equally present in all directions so there is no reason for the magnet to be attracted in any particular direction, thus it remains immobile, until the-other-magnet comes close, at which point that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet is not equally present in all directions and thus the magnet could equally well be described as being attracted in the direction with the largest quantity of 'that-which-is-not-the-other-magnetness'.
So it's just a matter of conventional descriptions. The conventional description is that the magnet is repulsed by the other magnet, but it would be just as logical to describe it as the magnet being attracted to not-magnetness.
For reasons of not being long-winded the former description is the accepted convention. Not for any other reason.

If you can't see this I'm sure you'll keep banging on. But it's getting boring.

No, it wouldn't. Magnets are attracted to everything that is not a magnet? Quick, go tell wood that it's being awfully stubborn. Perhaps wood just can't love like an iron filing does?

That convention would make no sense.

That we speak of this as a convention -- we have attached the words 'positive' and 'negative' to the magnetic poles -- does not make the scientific idea a mere convention. It is the language that is conventional, not the idea.

Please, can we dispense with the second-rate Empedocles' schtick now?

What we mean by love has little to do with electromagnetic forces, at least at the level of description of magnets. Even as a metaphor this is lame beyond belief.

 

[H'ethetheth]

So morals are somehow divided between being in the brain and being outside of the brain. Are remorse, pity, empathy, altruism, shame, compassion, kindness, hate, jealousy in the brain or outside of it? Are some of them in the brain and some not? If so which ones and why?

No, and what gave you that idea?

Is remorse 62% in the brain and 38% outside of it? What determines these percentages? Are they the same percentages for each brain?
I could go on, but you get the picture.

Yes, I'm quite sure that you don't understand my position.

'Hardwiredness' misunderstands what morality is. A determined hardwired action is not a moral action. A moral action is only moral because it is done consciously, freely, and intentionally.
If you're talking about hardwiredness you aren't talking about morality, you're talking about instincts, reflexes and the like.

My thoughts about this are that all our thoughts and actions are a result of hardwiring, like emotions and moral gut feeling, and what we call rational thought, which is something you can learn. You seem to ascribe the position to me that learning does not exist.

By living.

So I can verify, among other things, that morals lie outside my own consciousness by living? If you want to convince me of that, you will have to give some details about how to live, because I can't see how one would go about that.

You can imagine all kinds of scenarios in which people object to immoral actions perpetrated against others which couldn't possibly happen to themselves. A man who had already freely chosen to be vasectomised could well object to the forced sterilisation of others, such as the mentally handicapped.
I don't think that's the way we really, in an everyday sense, object to immoral actions. If I see someone being beaten up by a gang I don't think 'if I don't intervene here the same thing might happen to me in the future'. In fact, my very act of intervening would increase the probability of the same thing happening to myself by a few thousand percent. You intervene in the fight because your conscience tells you that what is happening is wrong. At least that is the evidence presented to me by my own experience of life. Is it not yours too?

My conscience tells me it's wrong to beat someone up, yes, but I still don't see how this is information that comes from outside my brain, as opposed to an innate feeling of compassion, instilled by, say, the evolutionary benefits of cooperative behavior.
The fact that I choose not to act can be, beside rational, also be because of an innate fear of taking risks like that. In this case, a situation in which the possible benefits are much smaller than the hazards.

 

[cyborg]

Where is gravity? Where is love? Where are any of the myriad ideas humans have come up with to help them relate aspects of their surroundings? The answer is nowhere, because they are not a thing, they are a relation between things.

This seems to be a very difficult point for some people to grasp.

The label for "apple" refers to something that "exists", the label for "love" refers to something that "exists", therefore the equivocation "apple exists like love exists" becomes the argument of choice for those who do not understand the meta/thing/label distinction.

 

[blobru]

No, it wouldn't. Magnets are attracted to everything that is not a magnet? Quick, go tell wood that it's being awfully stubborn. Perhaps wood just can't love like an iron filing does?

That convention would make no sense.

That we speak of this as a convention -- we have attached the words 'positive' and 'negative' to the magnetic poles -- does not make the scientific idea a mere convention. It is the language that is conventional, not the idea.

Please, can we dispense with the second-rate Empedocles' schtick now?

What we mean by love has little to do with electromagnetic forces, at least at the level of description of magnets. Even as a metaphor this is lame beyond belief.

Actually, this succinct rebuttal is loud and clear and probably sufficient. ("Empedocles shtick"... ha!)

But, if you're really hard up for posts to read -- here (warning: the pre-socratic-like gibberish I have to quote makes for some excrutiating syntax):

Yawn.

Been reading Baba's Discourses, again?

(Yawn.) Might as well have a look at plumjam's renewed effort to reconcile almighty Baba with reality:

That-which-is-not-the-other-magnet is equally present in all directions so there is no reason for the magnet to be attracted in any particular direction, thus it remains immobile,

(Unless this theory is even sillier than it appears, "that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet" should read "that-which-is-not-the-magnet". I'll make that change in what follows.)

Okay. The claim is that the magnet is in attractive equilibrium with "that-which-is-not-the-magnet": i.e., the rest of the universe. That's the hypothesis to be tested then.

until the-other-magnet comes close, at which point that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet is not equally present in all directions

Now the additional claim is made that moving anything that is "that-which-is-not-the-magnet", i.e., anything except the magnet, including the-other-magnet of course, means that-which-is-not-the-magnet is no longer equally present in all directions, so the magnet is no longer in equilibrium with everything else.

We've learned, according to Baba's theory of electromagnetism, that the reason a thing is immobile is it is in equilibrium with that which is not it. Moving anything which is not it throws the immobile thing out of equilibrium, exerts a force on it. Thus, moving the-other-magnet should cause every immobile thing in the universe to lose its equilibrium with that which is not it and to "move".

(Luckily, things don't, indeed couldn't, work like that.)

Contradiction one. More to come.

and thus the magnet could equally well be described as being attracted in the direction with the largest quantity of 'that-which-is-not-the-other-magnetness'.

So moving the-other-magnet meant that-which-is-not-the-magnet was no longer equally present in all directions and caused an attraction in the direction opposite to the-other-magnet's motion, the direction which now has "the largest quantity of 'that-which-is-not-the-magnetness'". Moving the-other-magnet toward the magnet increases the quantity of 'that-which-is-not-the--magnetness' behind, not in front of the magnet as one might expect, and attracts it in that direction? Hmm.

Then moving the-other-magnet away from the magnet should cause it to be attracted in that direction. Yet this doesn't happen in experiments. Because all magnets have limited range beyond which their field has no effect.

Another obvious contradiction with experimental fact.

But additionally, moving anything that is not the magnet should cause the same repulsion, because its movement means that-which-is-not-the-magnet is no longer equally present in all directions, and so should cause a similar attraction in the direction of most that-which-not-the-magnetness (Lord Jesus Christ! -- good thing Baba didn't edit science textbooks).

Yet repulsion, which Baba claims is attraction, only occurs between two magnets. Bring a non-magnet close -- a glass, a book, a shoe -- and there is no attraction of the magnet in any direction, let alone in the direction of most that-which-is-not-the-magnet-ness, whatever that is.

Obvious contradiction.

Finally, note that if we were to reverse the polarity of the-other-magnet, moving it toward the magnet now attracts it (towards the other magnet, not away). Yet that-which-is-not-the-magnet-ness has been unbalanced in the same way, with the same movement, as before. So not only does that-which-is-not-the-magnet-ness not explain repulsion, it can't even account for attraction.

Contradiction.

Therefore, four times over, the hypothesis is false: the magnet is not in attractive equilibrium with "that-which-is-not-the-magnet". The motive force on the magnet is not caused by the entirety of other things. It must be caused by the local repulsive forces of the magnets themselves. As is well described in the conventional theory of electromagnetism.

So it's just a matter of conventional descriptions.

No. It's a matter of one excellent description, based on the scientific theory of magnetism, and one incredibly stupid obviously wrong description, based on the religious theories of Meher Baba.

The conventional description is that the magnet is repulsed by the other magnet, but it would be just as logical to describe it as the magnet being attracted to not-magnetness.

No. As has just been demonstrated, it would be incredibly stupid and obviously wrong to describe it that way.

For reasons of not being long-winded the former description is the accepted convention. Not for any other reason.

No. For reasons of not being incredibly stupid and obviously wrong the former description is the convention. Plus it's good science. Not bad religion.

If you can't see this I'm sure you'll keep banging on. But it's getting boring.

Wow. Plumjam's been trolling other people's beliefs or lack thereof for months now, making the same bad arguments, over and over, and coming back for more. Bang, bang, bang...

Somebody dares to question HIS beliefs, with sound arguments, and he's "banging on"... "it's getting boring." For how dare people not see and accept this "truth", however incredibly stupid and obviously wrong it may be.

Ignorance, arrogance, or just plain Baba? (Is their golden rule: Do unto others until they do unto you?)

Whatever, Baba's theory of magnetism is still wrong. Very wrong. Proof it would seem that Meher Baba is not infallible. Not god. And not the final word on love.

 

[plumjam]

Actually, this succinct rebuttal is loud and clear and probably sufficient. ("Empedocles shtick"... ha!)

But, if you're really hard up for posts to read -- here (warning: the pre-socratic-like gibberish I have to quote makes for some excrutiating syntax):



Been reading Baba's Discourses, again?

(Yawn.) Might as well have a look at plumjam's renewed effort to reconcile almighty Baba with reality:
(Unless this theory is even sillier than it appears, "that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet" should read "that-which-is-not-the-magnet". I'll make that change in what follows.)

Okay. The claim is that the magnet is in attractive equilibrium with "that-which-is-not-the-magnet": i.e., the rest of the universe. That's the hypothesis to be tested then.



Now the additional claim is made that moving anything that is "that-which-is-not-the-magnet", i.e., anything except the magnet, including the-other-magnet of course, means that-which-is-not-the-magnet is no longer equally present in all directions, so the magnet is no longer in equilibrium with everything else.

We've learned, according to Baba's theory of electromagnetism, that the reason a thing is immobile is it is in equilibrium with that which is not it. Moving anything which is not it throws the immobile thing out of equilibrium, exerts a force on it. Thus, moving the-other-magnet should cause every immobile thing in the universe to lose its equilibrium with that which is not it and to "move".

(Luckily, things don't, indeed couldn't, work like that.)

Contradiction one. More to come.



So moving the-other-magnet meant that-which-is-not-the-magnet was no longer equally present in all directions and caused an attraction in the direction opposite to the-other-magnet's motion, the direction which now has "the largest quantity of 'that-which-is-not-the-magnetness'". Moving the-other-magnet toward the magnet increases the quantity of 'that-which-is-not-the--magnetness' behind, not in front of the magnet as one might expect, and attracts it in that direction? Hmm.

Then moving the-other-magnet away from the magnet should cause it to be attracted in that direction. Yet this doesn't happen in experiments. Because all magnets have limited range beyond which their field has no effect.

Another obvious contradiction with experimental fact.

But additionally, moving anything that is not the magnet should cause the same repulsion, because its movement means that-which-is-not-the-magnet is no longer equally present in all directions, and so should cause a similar attraction in the direction of most that-which-not-the-magnetness (Lord Jesus Christ! -- good thing Baba didn't edit science textbooks).

Yet repulsion, which Baba claims is attraction, only occurs between two magnets. Bring a non-magnet close -- a glass, a book, a shoe -- and there is no attraction of the magnet in any direction, let alone in the direction of most that-which-is-not-the-magnet-ness, whatever that is.

Obvious contradiction.

Finally, note that if we were to reverse the polarity of the-other-magnet, moving it toward the magnet now attracts it (towards the other magnet, not away). Yet that-which-is-not-the-magnet-ness has been unbalanced in the same way, with the same movement, as before. So not only does that-which-is-not-the-magnet-ness not explain repulsion, it can't even account for attraction.

Contradiction.

Therefore, four times over, the hypothesis is false: the magnet is not in attractive equilibrium with "that-which-is-not-the-magnet". The motive force on the magnet is not caused by the entirety of other things. It must be caused by the local repulsive forces of the magnets themselves. As is well described in the conventional theory of electromagnetism.



No. It's a matter of one excellent description, based on the scientific theory of magnetism, and one incredibly stupid obviously wrong description, based on the religious theories of Meher Baba.



No. As has just been demonstrated, it would be incredibly stupid and obviously wrong to describe it that way.



No. For reasons of not being incredibly stupid and obviously wrong the former description is the convention. Plus it's good science. Not bad religion.



Wow. Plumjam's been trolling other people's beliefs or lack thereof for months now, making the same bad arguments, over and over, and coming back for more. Bang, bang, bang...

Somebody dares to question HIS beliefs, with sound arguments, and he's "banging on"... "it's getting boring." For how dare people not see and accept this "truth", however incredibly stupid and obviously wrong it may be.

Ignorance, arrogance, or just plain Baba? (Is their golden rule: Do unto others until they do unto you?)

Whatever, Baba's theory of magnetism is still wrong. Very wrong. Proof it would seem that Meher Baba is not infallible. Not god. And not the final word on love.

Just as I predicted; more banging on from you. It's starting to turn into a rant. I read the first paragraph or two, more of the same, and frankly I can't be bothered to read the rest, Blobru.
It was already boring about 3 posts ago.
Maybe try to find something more constructive or at least interesting to spend your time and energy on.

Peace and Love

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think I've just witnessed the birth of a new logical fallacy -- argument from apathy.

At least practicioners of the other fallacies try. How thoroughly sad.

 

[JoeEllison]

No Joe. That definitely isn't a convincing definition of love.

What, do you expect a hug for posting the delusions of some nutball? If you had people who love you in your life, they'd steer you away from all the dumb things you latch onto, and give you something better to fill those empty spaces and boost your self-esteem a bit.

Seriously, I wish you good luck finding that.

 

[plumjam]

I think I've just witnessed the birth of a new logical fallacy -- argument from apathy.

At least practicioners of the other fallacies try. How thoroughly sad.

More like argumentum ad desperandum tedium de repetitionem same themum overum et overum againem magnetium magnetium magnetium blobum deafum mischievium yawni floggus mortem hippo nomorum, thankum verymuchium.

 

[plumjam]

What, do you expect a hug for posting the delusions of some nutball? If you had people who love you in your life, they'd steer you away from all the dumb things you latch onto, and give you something better to fill those empty spaces and boost your self-esteem a bit.

Seriously, I wish you good luck finding that.

When are you going to ask for a refund from the psychology course?

 

[blobru]

Just as I predicted; more banging on from you. It's starting to turn into a rant. I read the first paragraph or two, more of the same, and frankly I can't be bothered to read the rest, Blobru.
It was already boring about 3 posts ago.
Maybe try to find something more constructive or at least interesting to spend your time and energy on.

Peace and Love

Something more constructive and interesting than Meher Baba? Hmm...

That-which-is-not-Baba?

Groovy.

You know this is a skeptics' forum, plumjam.

If you sneer at other posters' definitions of love,

Some pretty poor replies , which is not surprising, as materialism struggles to accommodate the myriad forms of love.

then offer the trite and fallacious tripe you linked to as something superior,

Food for thought here, offered to my fellow forumites in a spirit of ....well, y,know :
http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/v1-156.php

prepare to have it debunked, and to be sneered at in return. Especially if the author of the tripe claims to be "infallible".

Meher Baba is not "infallible". Anyone with a fourth grade education can see he doesn't understand basic electricity.

Now he may have had some good ideas on ethics. If so, great. I'm all for peace and love, except when it turns into arrogance and ignorance.

It's too bad you're bored by logic. You're a smart, funny guy with a quick mind, and could really be a first-rate thinker if you broadened your horizons a bit, plumjam.

So Baba was just a man, a great man if you like, a hero, but a fallible man. Why always depend on him or anyone else to define love for you? Find it in yourself, man. That's the only true definition of love anyway, right?

Peace out.

 

[edge]

I read somewhere that, knowledge is love and all love is knowledge.

I believe it to make sense down to the smallest bit of knowledge, Like Just a gaze into some ones eyes and realizing the color is extraordinary and beautiful.
Because you just learned something about that person.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

More like argumentum ad desperandum tedium de repetitionem same themum overum et overum againem magnetium magnetium magnetium blobum deafum mischievium yawni floggus mortem hippo nomorum, thankum verymuchium.

Even more sad, really. You obviously have such potential, yet run away from logical argument when it takes you to a place you do not like.

Jokes are fine. But I hope that you actually attend to what Blobru wrote too. Think about it, please?

 

[plumjam]

Even more sad, really. You obviously have such potential, yet run away from logical argument when it takes you to a place you do not like.

Jokes are fine. But I hope that you actually attend to what Blobru wrote too. Think about it, please?

I dealt with the matter, and explained how it is logically merely a matter of which terminology you choose. Your bit about the wood and iron was not relevant because the example Blobs proposed was two magnets, and that was what I dealt with.
He is clearly in baiting-mode, and I prefer not to encourage it, because it was starting to reveal a less pleasant side of him. On the positive side though, he has clearly spent quite a segment of the last two days meditating on Meher Baba. That'll help him in some way down the line.

 

[rocketdodger]

I read somewhere that, knowledge is love and all love is knowledge.

I believe it to make sense down to the smallest bit of knowledge, Like Just a gaze into some ones eyes and realizing the color is extraordinary and beautiful.
Because you just learned something about that person.

How can you go from vomiting dogmatic nonsense that makes me less intelligent just reading it to posting wonderful, thoughtful gems like this?

I just don't understand the human mind I suppose ...

The only problem, edge, is that this screws up plumjam's master plan -- the tidbit you posted here doesn't say anything about love requiring juju.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I dealt with the matter, and explained how it is logically merely a matter of which terminology you choose. Your bit about the wood and iron was not relevant because the example Blobs proposed was two magnets, and that was what I dealt with.
He is clearly in baiting-mode, and I prefer not to encourage it, because it was starting to reveal a less pleasant side of him. On the positive side though, he has clearly spent quite a segment of the last two days meditating on Meher Baba. That'll help him in some way down the line.

No, no you didn't. Let's look at what you actually said.

Blobru,
how do you know that the magnet is positively repulsed by the other magnet, rather than positively attracted to the non-magnet i.e. that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet?
You don't. There's no way you possibly could know that.
All that happens is that you observe a movement in a magnet. Calling it repulsion or attraction is just a matter of choosing words. It's just as logical to say that magnet A is attracted to NotmagnetB more than it is attracted to magnet B.
So it's a matter of words, and a black hole of semantics and pedantry.

if you want to continue spending your time arguing the toss about magnetic repulsion in a thread about love, that's your call. Seems like a monumental waste of time to me.

How do you know that the magnet is repulsed? We adopt a convention because it works. We call one pole positive and the other negative. They clearly have different properties. We know that it is the magnet that provides the attractive/repulsive force because the strength of the force depends on the proximity of the magnet to its site of action and on the strength of magnetic field produced by the magnet. Furthermore, we can create the same effect by running current through a wire and turn it on and off.

What in the world is 'not-the-magnet'? The rest of the universe? Are you honestly suggesting that we cannot be sure that it is a magnet that provides the repulsive force, but that it may be the-rest-of-the-universe acting (not-the-magnet)? Yet, the-rest-of-the-universe provides this attraction only in the presence of the magnet? And the amount of attraction the-rest-of-the-universe provides depends on the proximity of the magnet and the inherent strength of the magnetic field it creates?

Yeah, I suppose that penicillin doesn't kill bacteria. It is the action of the-rest-of-the-universe re-arranging itself after we give someone the drug. Can you prove that wrong? There is a reason why Blobru mentioned Ockham's razor. One of those scenarios is considerably more likely than the other.

The convention 'positive' and 'negative' consists of words. What actually happens with electromagnetism is not mere semantics or convention.

But all of this misses the point. Herr Baba's metaphor is an anemic excuse for the reason most of us get up in the morning, face the rising sun, and live.

 

[dglas]

How can you go from vomiting dogmatic nonsense that makes me less intelligent just reading it to posting wonderful, thoughtful gems like this?

I just don't understand the human mind I suppose ...

The only problem, edge, is that this screws up plumjam's master plan -- the tidbit you posted here doesn't say anything about love requiring juju.

Edge was quoting someone else, I suspect.