|
Post by henry on Feb 22, 2004 22:24:52 GMT -5
Well, why don't animals experience love? Supposing they don't, couldn't "love" just be the result of certain chemical reactions that, for whatever reason, occur only in humans?
|
|
|
Post by flirtayangel on Feb 23, 2004 20:48:21 GMT -5
just for the record, it has been proven that chocolate does not cause love, it just helps in the fun. Just in case anyone was wondering, and i'm trying my best to get this thread off topic like all the others on this forum after they've gone over one page!
~*~Me
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 23, 2004 21:17:10 GMT -5
just for the record, it has been proven that chocolate does not cause love... ~*~Me Not unless you have a chocolate fetish ;D
|
|
|
Post by henry on Feb 23, 2004 21:18:31 GMT -5
Not unless you have a chocolate fetish ;D I think you're confusing "love" with "erections."
|
|
|
Post by flirtayangel on Feb 23, 2004 21:18:54 GMT -5
But wont cause love for another person. And I doubt the fetish will cause a true love thing.
~*~Me
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 23, 2004 21:19:57 GMT -5
Perhaps. But chocolate can't hurt either
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Feb 23, 2004 23:20:17 GMT -5
Perhaps. But chocolate can't hurt either False!
Some people are alergic to chocolate. Very much hurt right there indeed.
|
|
|
Post by flirtayangel on Feb 23, 2004 23:29:35 GMT -5
Ah well, poor them. More for the rest of us!
~*~Me
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Feb 23, 2004 23:36:52 GMT -5
*Eats some chocolate as he writes this post* I second that!
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Feb 24, 2004 1:05:08 GMT -5
back to topic.... the problem Magister... is that our defenition is a human perception of the universe... and because we perceive the universe in a different way, we may be able to define things but our defenitions may be wrong. Because we observe the universe from a unique perspective, we cannot fully understand how it works. Already there are thousands of counter examples to physics, bees shouldnt be able to fly, duck quacks dont echo... etc. essentially we are basing the laws of the universe off of our own flawed perceptions. As you said, chemistry is based on physics which is based on mathamatics, and already our numberline is obviously flawed.... I mean electricity is imaginary in our number system, and our number system makes no easy way for us to get pi or e as integer numbers. Our defenition is the universe is flawed so we cannot define things absolutely... In terms of scientific defenitions, we are basing our defenitions off of false theories.
furthermore, there are also some things that are impossible to define, because a defenition is merely a way of communicating to another human being a feeling, or a sense. Therefore, if the person you are describing the feeling to, has never felt it or anything like it, then in that case, no matter how well you explain, the person can never really understand it, and therefore you cannot define this feeling. For example, try to explain something like seeing to a blind man... it is impossible, because, if you describe the colors, he does not know what black is, if you describe the texture, he does not know what rough looks like, only how it feels... if you describe using metaphors, he may not be able to understand the metaphors because he will not have ever sensed them either.... In otherwords, dont assume that everything is definable.... one can only define things that others have experienced.
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 24, 2004 3:27:24 GMT -5
It doesn't matter if our defining system is not perfect. Errors are permissable, but that doesn't mean that it's undefinable.
True, explaining color to a blind man is difficult, but it's not communication that defines things. A definition is simply a perception of some sort. So to a blind man, color may be like thermal vision is to us. We can't see it, but we know it exists, and we can define it.
The difference is that it's harder for a blind man to discover color, because he lacks one of the most important sensory organs in observation.
But you can still define anything you can imagine. Everything else, you've simply not discovered yet. But when you will, you will be able to define it as well.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Feb 24, 2004 17:03:19 GMT -5
Well, technically, a true universal definition encompasses all aspects of the object in question perfectly. Then it is not perception but reality.
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 24, 2004 19:54:27 GMT -5
True.
But that doesn't change the point. There is still a definition/explanation for everything.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Feb 25, 2004 2:24:58 GMT -5
No.... there are two kinds of defenitions, the real defenition, which describes the "science" behind an object (for example water: H2O a molecule in which the Oxygen.... etc)
the other is a communicative defenition, one which describes an object to another human so that he can understand how you felt etc..... (ex: describing the pain you felt when you broke up with someone... unless you explain that kind of pain in reference to neurons inhibitors etc...)
The first kind of defenition allows for a proper defenition for everything in the universe... however, we can not define anything in such a manner, because we do not properly understand how the universe works. therefore any defenition we make of this kind could be wrong.
The second kind of defenition, as I explained before hand, allows us to describe to someone feelings or images, sensory or mental details. However, essentially in order to define something in this manner, the other person must have also had a similar experience. to explain color the person must have seen before to understand it, to explain music, the person must have heard sounds before (you could explain using writing). In that sense, not everything is definable....
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Feb 25, 2004 17:25:51 GMT -5
If you were to think of it like they taught us in geometry there is a definition and a description. If you remember there are things in geometry that can't be defined such as points, which can only be described. The same could possibly apply to things outside of geometry. Such as you can't define love, but you can describe it.
|
|