What is love?

[Michelle Lyon]

22 degrees, you heretic.

I got 27.

 

[Michelle Lyon]

Funny how materialists try to turn this around and make out that humanity not fitting into their materialist dogma must be a sign of us not being designed.
Makes me laugh.

Perhaps I'd understand the question better if I knew what you meant by "materialism". Materialism to me is a synonym for consumerism, but you seem to be using it to mean something else. Please explain?

 

[Michelle Lyon]

How interesting. On this forum I keep hearing about these fabled MOUNTAINS of evidence to back up the dogma. Rarely do you get to see any.

Just look up any scientific journal, research center, or documentary, and you'll find your evidence. No one could possibly post every single research project ever done onto an online forum just for you. You have to do the dirty work yourself, hon. And if you really wanna know about that evidence, then you'll do the work rather than sitting on a computer pushing peoples' buttons.

 

[Hokulele]

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

That-which-is-not-Baba?

Dada?

 

[godofpie]

Perhaps I'd understand the question better if I knew what you meant by "materialism". Materialism to me is a synonym for consumerism, but you seem to be using it to mean something else. Please explain?

That's what I thought too, Michelle but apparently it can also mean "one that believes in the material world only." I wish there was another word that they would use because it has such a negative connotation for me. Like all I believe in is physical possessions.

 

[plumjam]

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 whole conversation was about attraction/repulsion.
Which are forms of movement.
In fact, there is only one form of movement. We conceptually apply this notion of attraction/repulsion on top of the movement. Yet there is nothing observable to us about movement which indicates that it is attraction or repulsion. Logically, it is just movement, that's all.
It only becomes either attraction or repulsion when we decide to define it as such.
Yeah, in the penicillin example you can't tell whether the particular molecular/cellular movements which take place, and kill the bacteria, are either attractions or repulsions. Your belief that they have to be described in a particular way is purely due to you having been educated in that particular convention. They are just movements.

Is white lack of black? Or is black lack of white?
Your choice.
One culture could choose the former as the convention. Another culture could choose the latter as the convention.

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

What happens is just what happens. How it is described, and how we discuss it is 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.

Please explain in more detail.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The whole conversation was about attraction/repulsion.
Which are forms of movement.
In fact, there is only one form of movement. We conceptually apply this notion of attraction/repulsion on top of the movement. Yet there is nothing observable to us about movement which indicates that it is attraction or repulsion. Logically, it is just movement, that's all.
It only becomes either attraction or repulsion when we decide to define it as such.
Yeah, in the penicillin example you can't tell whether the particular molecular/cellular movements which take place, and kill the bacteria, are either attractions or repulsions. Your belief that they have to be described in a particular way is purely due to you having been educated in that particular convention. They are just movements.

You can't weasel out of this in such a way, by reformulating my example into attraction/repulsion. The penicillin example shows the inanity of your response.

You said that we cannot tell the difference between repulsion of a magnet and attraction of not-magnet when you see movement in magnets placed in close proximity. You did not define 'not-magnet'. Perhaps you would like to do so now. The only logical choice I can see is that 'not-magnet' comprises 'the-rest-of-the-universe'.

We are left with two choices -- (1) magnets carry some form of 'energy' within them and affect other magnets or objects because of this 'energy' or (2) 'the-rest-of-the-universe' acts on the second magnet or other object but in some completely peculiar way that depends on the presence of the magnet.

Let's look at the evidence. I place a magnet on a table. I place another magnet on the table. I move magnet 2 close to magnet 1 and notice that magnet 1 moves away from magnet 2, twirls on its central axis, then moves toward magnet 2 -- but only when magnet 2 is very close to magnet 1. I move magnet 2 further away from magnet 1 and nothing happens. I replace magnet 2 with a stronger magnet and magnet 1 does the same thing, but magnet 2 doesn't have to be so close. Then I do the same thing with coils of wire and run a current through them, changing the number of coils and the amount of current and see different results with magnet 1.

Hmmm. According to you, we could view this as an effect of magnet 2 on magnet 1 or an effect of not-the-magnet (the-rest-of-the-universe) on magnet 1. Of course we could view it that way, that is not the point; if we wanted to be completely idiotic about it, we could certainly call into question the entire project of inductive reasoning. The point is that view does not consider the actual evidence -- that the only action we see depends critically on the presence of magnet 2, the proximity of magnet 2, and the strength of magnet 2. The-rest-of-the-universe is held constant. It would be daft to conclude that the magnet's behavior was a consequence of the-rest-of-the-universe -- which was held constant -- and not magnet 2.

The same is true for the penicillin example. The-rest-of-the-universe is held constant when the sick person is given penicillin. But if we take two people with meningitis and give one penicillin and not the other (aside from the ensuing jail time and angry mob with pitchforks) it will become immediately clear that one is alive and the other dead. Does it make any sense to describe what happens as the-rest-of-the-universe changes in relation to the person given penicillin but not the person not given penicillin? Attraction/repulsion -- those terms don't apply to the penicillin example.

Since changes in the second magnet (or penicillin) produce different results, we use language that reflects that reality. We use language that encodes the evidence. It is not a simple matter of 'you only see movement' -- we see different movement by changing one of the actors, so we speak of that actor as being the agent of change. While one could certainly speak of the universe as the agent of change, that would provide no useful information. I could just as easily speak of the FSM as the agent of change -- all things in relation to the FSM, or invisible pink monkeys act differently in the presence of stronger magnets -- innumerable frames are possible. But those conventions simply ignore the evidence or needlessly compound a simple phenomenon. That is why Blobru railed at Herr Baba's second-rate semi-Empedoclean whitewash and why he mentioned Ockham. Baba's account ignores the evidence and frames the issue in a totally useless and misleading way.

What you seem to be doing is committing the worst of post-modern abuses -- completely ignoring the game that Derrida played and introducing the idea that all frames are precisely equal. Whatever English departments in the U.S. decide to do with deconstruction (and from what I have seen of a few of them, they don't seem to understand it very well), it is not the case that all interpretations are equal.

Is white lack of black? Or is black lack of white?
Your choice.
One culture could choose the former as the convention. Another culture could choose the latter as the convention.

That is a different situation from the magnet or penicillin use. To draw a parallel is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of how language is used. Black, white, positive, negative -- of course they are labelled according to convention. They can be defined in several ways. And all of those differences are equal, since there is no further information contained within such conventions. Who cares if the word we use is 'black' or 'bawana' or if it is defined as the presence of 'black' or the absence of 'white'? That is mere convention. That is not the case with physical phenomena.

But the situation with the magnet and with penicillin is not merely an issue with naming conventions. At heart is the whole issue of inductive logic -- where is the locus of action to produce change. To suggest that the-rest-of-the-universe acting on magnet 1 is identical to magnet 2 acting on magnet 1 even though the locus of change depends on changes in magnet 2 (or penicillin) -- the rest of the universe does not change -- would involve the destruction of inductive logic.

What happens is just what happens. How it is described, and how we discuss it is convention.

No, it is not just convention, if by that (as you seem to) that the possible conventions are equally probable or useful. Whether or not we want to describe the process as contained within magnet 2 or penicillin or within the-rest-of-the-universe, the cause of change clearly depends on the presence of magnet 2 or the penicillin. The convention adopted is -- use the easiest explanation. That is the point behind using Ockham's razor. The fact that we can adopt two potential frameworks to describe a phenomenon does not mean that both frameworks are equally plausible or equally useful. One of those frameworks -- the 'active agent' is in magnet 2 and penicillin is useful (actually it's an interaction issue with magnets and with penicillin, but to explain in detail would needlessly complicate the situation). The other is a waste of time, which is why we jettison it.

We could adopt any number of increasingly bizarre frameworks to describe such phenomena. But they are not equally useful. Language is a utility-driven device. It carries with it many different uses, though.

That we use these conventions in the way we do does not mean that we accept the nature of reality as the way we use our language. Why you seem to think people do so, especially when many of us have specifically said otherwise elsewhere, is totally beyond me.

Please explain in more detail.

I'm not participating in the discussion of what love is. It is far too complicated and important for any simple, trite explanation. My answer would depend on large swathes of the Western canon.

 

[edge]

Love = positive, hate= negative. Knowledge is love, love is knowledge.

But when knowledge creates a weapon of lets say mass destruction like and atomic bomb then it is hate.
But then that knowledge can be used to light up your house with power.
Free will in the chose is involved.
It is a two-sided coin in a way, where free will created both of these scenarios.
One didn’t have to exist and the other should exist.
You can bring it down a notch where people are involved; you like or dislike some one, your repelled or attracted.
It’s a lot less dangerous with magnets.

 

[cyborg]

Is fighting an oppressive force an act of hate?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Love = positive, hate= negative. Knowledge is love, love is knowledge.

But when knowledge creates a weapon of lets say mass destruction like and atomic bomb then it is hate.
But then that knowledge can be used to light up your house with power.
Free will in the chose is involved.
It is a two-sided coin in a way, where free will created both of these scenarios.
One didn’t have to exist and the other should exist.
You can bring it down a notch where people are involved; you like or dislike some one, your repelled or attracted.
It’s a lot less dangerous with magnets.

So, knowing that you hate Breyer's ice cream is really love?

Do you have anything that wouldn't be placed prominently in a Hallmark card?

 

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps I'd understand the question better if I knew what you meant by "materialism". Materialism to me is a synonym for consumerism, but you seem to be using it to mean something else. Please explain?

Plumjam actually is a materialist (see my recent thread on theism being a subset of materialism) but he refuses to admit it -- if he did, then there would be one less grouping he could use to separate himself from us heathens. So when he calls us "materialists" what he really means is "someone I want to attack, but since I am unable to use logic to do so, I have to resort to name-calling, albeit using a name the meaning of which I don't even understand."

The "materialism" of plumjam bears no resemblance to the actual metaphysical position of materialism, other than the fact that both are hated by religious ignoramuses. I suspect this is why he has choosen that label -- for the emotional effect, rather than accuracy of description.

 

[Robin]

Plumjam actually is a materialist (see my recent thread on theism being a subset of materialism) but he refuses to admit it -- if he did, then there would be one less grouping he could use to separate himself from us heathens.

Actually he does admit it in another recent thread:

However, if God exists, then divine and, to some extent, magical phenomena are entirely natural.

(His emphasis)

 

[rocketdodger]

Actually he does admit it in another recent thread:

(His emphasis)

...wow... so what on earth is he talking about when he says... well, when he says anything?

 

[plumjam]

Actually he does admit it in another recent thread:

(His emphasis)

Believing that things like God, aspects of the 'paranormal' etc... exist would mean that they are part of the nature of reality, thus entirely natural.
That does not make one a materialist, by any reasonable, meaningful, and commonly used definition of the term.

 

[Robin]

Believing that things like God, aspects of the 'paranormal' etc... exist would mean that they are part of the nature of reality, thus entirely natural.
That does not make one a materialist, by any reasonable, meaningful, and commonly used definition of the term.

You mean that you have heard of a reasonable, meaningful and commonly used definition of the term 'Materialism' that excludes natural entities?

I am not sure what definition you are using for Materialist. Perhaps you should state it.

 

[plumjam]

You mean that you have heard of a reasonable, meaningful and commonly used definition of the term 'Materialism' that excludes natural entities?

Nothing like that.

That which is part of the nature of reality is natural. Everything that exists is natural. Materialists believe that some things purported by some others to be part of the nature of reality, such as God, ghosts, angels etc.. do not exist, and thus are not natural. Hence they label them 'supernatural' (that is materialist-ese for 'non-existent').

It's kind of a trick. When materialists are forced to accept that something previously labeled 'supernatural' exists, then they reply "Aahh.. but you see, now it isn't supernatural, because it exists. It is now natural, so there was never any problem. And we were right before, and remain right. The supernatural remains non-existent."

Sleight of hand really. And dishonest.
It's a 'win-win' approach that is not actually saying anything, or in any way committing oneself intellectually.

I am not sure what definition you are using for Materialist. Perhaps you should state it.

Here we go on the semantic train
Google philosophical materialism, if you really really want to.

 

[Robin]

Nothing like that.

That which is part of the nature of reality is natural. Everything that exists is natural. Materialists believe that some things purported by some others to be part of the nature of reality, such as God, ghosts, angels etc.. do not exist, and thus are not natural. Hence they label them 'supernatural' (that is materialist-ese for 'non-existent').

*Sigh* The old immaterialiist straw man pops up again. Again, any Materialist is perfectly willing to accept anything exists - just so long as there is evidence.

It's kind of a trick. When materialists are forced to accept that something previously labeled 'supernatural' exists, then they reply "Aahh.. but you see, now it isn't supernatural, because it exists. It is now natural, so there was never any problem. And we were right before, and remain right. The supernatural remains non-existent."

Sleight of hand really. And dishonest.
It's a 'win-win' approach that is not actually saying anything, or in any way committing oneself intellectually.

Unfortunately for your case it was not Materialists who coined the term supernatural. The Christian church claim God is supernatural. You can see this claim in many of the new books by Christians, for example by Frances Collins claims God is supernatural. Guy Consolmagno in his latest book claims God is supernatural and that is why there is no evidence for him.

Here is the Catholic doctrine on the supernatural:

The Supernatural Order is the ensemble of effects exceeding the powers of the created universe and gratuitously produced by God for the purpose of raising the rational creature above its native sphere to a God-like life and destiny. The meaning of the phrase fluctuates with that of its antithesis, the natural order.

Catholic Encyclopedia

In case you were not aware, the Catholic Church are not Materialists.

So as usual you have got it completely backwards.

Here we go on the semantic train
Google philosophical materialism, if you really really want to.

Here we go again with the lame excuses for not providing a definition for a concept your argument depends on.

You brought up the subject of a definition of Materialism, you claimed to be using one. Let's hear it.

 

[plumjam]

*Sigh* The old immaterialiist straw man pops up again. Again, any Materialist is perfectly willing to accept anything exists - just so long as there is evidence.

Unfortunately for your case it was not Materialists who coined the term supernatural. The Christian church claim God is supernatural. You can see this claim in many of the new books by Christians, for example by Frances Collins claims God is supernatural. Guy Consolmagno in his latest book claims God is supernatural and that is why there is no evidence for him.

Here is the Catholic doctrine on the supernatural:

In case you were not aware, the Catholic Church are not Materialists.

So as usual you have got it completely backwards.

Here we go again with the lame excuses for not providing a definition for a concept your argument depends on.

You brought up the subject of a definition of Materialism, you claimed to be using one. Let's hear it.

The Catholic Church etc.. use 'supernatural' in a meaningful, useful way. Materialists use 'supernatural' in an ultimately meaningless and useless way (the only use being as a synonym for non-existent).
That's the whole point.

 

[Robin]

The Catholic Church etc.. use 'supernatural' in a meaningful, useful way. Materialists use 'supernatural' in an ultimately meaningless and useless way (the only use being as a synonym for non-existent).
That's the whole point.

You would have to give evidence and examples like I did. I do not know of any case where a Materialist has labelled anything supernatural. If you do then please be more specific.

Usually, as I pointed out and gave examples, it is those making supernatural claims who label them supernatural. So Materialists are not labelling things as supernatural as a synonym for non-existent, they are simply referring to the label already put on these things by believers in the supernatural.

As far as a Materialist is concerned, natural or supernatural makes no difference - the only meaningful issue is 'where is the evidence?'

So you are patently flogging a dead horse trying to pursue this patently false claim.

And are you ever going to let us in on this reasonable, meaningful and commonly used definition of Materialism that you were so sure existed only a few posts ago?

 

[rocketdodger]

It's kind of a trick. When materialists are forced to accept that something previously labeled 'supernatural' exists, then they reply "Aahh.. but you see, now it isn't supernatural, because it exists. It is now natural, so there was never any problem. And we were right before, and remain right. The supernatural remains non-existent."

Sleight of hand really. And dishonest.
It's a 'win-win' approach that is not actually saying anything, or in any way committing oneself intellectually.

Wrong -- it is saying "that which can be known by humans can be known by humans, that which cannot, cannot." This is a simple tautology, so one might think it needn't be stated -- but it clearly does, as billions of people on earth (including you) don't seem to be able to grasp the idea.

The only reason you think this is "dishonest" is, like I said earlier, because you want to use the label "materialist" for out-grouping so that you may attack "materialists." You don't care what materialist means, so long as you are not one and we are.