Love?

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
All feelings have a physiological driver, albeit in most cases a complex one.

So what, does that mean that is all they are?

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
So what, does that mean that is all they are?

All what are?

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
All what are?

Feelings, when you discuss a topic ypu do not have to continually refer to that topic.

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
Feelings, when you discuss a topic ypu do not have to continually refer to that topic.

Your statement required a restatement of the subject because otherwise it was vague. But anyway, yes, feelings are driven by physiological processes.

David · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
So what, does that mean that is all they are?

Yes. The human brain is an eltro-chemical computer. Everything you feel and think is the result of calculations driven by the interaction of electricity and chemicals (the equivalent to 1s and 0s in a digital computer). No amount of romanticizing changes this fundamental fact.

clax · Jul 12, 2012

David said:
Yes. The human brain is an eltro-chemical computer. Everything you feel and think is the result of calculations driven by the interaction of electricity and chemicals (the equivalent to 1s and 0s in a digital computer). No amount of romanticizing changes this fundamental fact.

How sad. the world isn't that simple. If it was, why can't we replicate it?

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
Your statement required a restatement of the subject because otherwise it was vague. But anyway, yes, feelings are driven by physiological processes.

Being that this is a dialog it wasn't nessasary to restate that.

Can't spin so you play games. Very immature.

Experiance plays no role in how feelings are percived?

You better go inform the psychology department.

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
How sad. the world isn't that simple. If it was, why can't we replicate it?

Again with the complete rejection of science. We can and have replicated it- how do you think mood-altering drugs work? That aside, we can measure and quantify many emotions (albeit not fully yet) and thoughts. It is physiological- it isn't magic. We know this.

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
Experiance plays no role in how feelings are percived?

Again? Really? Again, you mischaracterize what I have said. PLEASE show me where I said or implied that.

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
Again with the complete rejection of science. We can and have replicated it- how do you think mood-altering drugs work? That aside, we can measure and quantify many emotions (albeit not fully yet) and thoughts. It is physiological- it isn't magic. We know this.

I said to the point that I didn't completely reject science. I clearly stated that it is only part of the idea. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. That is a really bad quality.

We can measure anything we want so what?

And you did say what you are backing up on now. I asked is all a feeling is as what can be measured. And you said essentially yes.

Stop with the mind games

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
Again? Really? Again, you mischaracterize what I have said. PLEASE show me where I said or implied that.

Look up about twelve posts.

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
I said to the point that I didn't completely reject science. I clearly stated that it is only part of the idea. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. That is a really bad quality.

We can measure anything we want so what?

And you did say what you are backing up on now. I asked is all a feeling is as what can be measured. And you said essentially yes.

Stop with the mind games

No one is playing mind games, if you want to have a rational and mature conversation, do it. Ironically, you mischaracterize my points almost every post you make.

And I didn't say you said you rejected science, but I merely said you did.

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
Look up about twelve posts.

Link it. I don't see any posts where I said that (because I know I didn't).

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
Again? Really? Again, you mischaracterize what I have said. PLEASE show me where I said or implied that.

myp said:
Link it. I don't see any posts where I said that (because I know I didn't).

I Am not linking it can you count to twelve, it will be fourteen now.

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
I Am not linking it can you count to twelve, it will be fourteen now.

Afraid you'll be caught in the act of making up things? Well, anyway, I counted and here it is: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=29285&postcount=20

Here is the quote from that post:

All feelings have a physiological driver, albeit in most cases a complex one.

Now, where the hell (sorry but your childish and irrational behavior is annoying me, I'll try to stay more civil next time) did I say experiance plays no role in how feelings are percived? Or do you admit that you either made it up or had an issue reading properly?

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
No one is playing mind games, if you want to have a rational and mature conversation, do it. Ironically, you mischaracterize my points almost every post you make.

And I didn't say you said you rejected science, but I merely said you did.

I don't reject science. I reject it as a complete evaluation of the human expiriance.

And you say I reject it completely. Why do you think this?

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
Afraid you'll be caught in the act of making up things? Well, anyway, I counted and here it is: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=29285&postcount=20

Here is the quote from that post:

Now, where the hell (sorry but your childish and irrational behavior is annoying me, I'll try to stay more civil next time) did I say experiance plays no role in how feelings are percived? Or do you admit that you either made it up or had an issue reading properly?

okay so why did you argue with me

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
okay so why did you argue with me

Because you were wrong, yet insisted you were not. Because you put words in my mouth as you keep doing again and again. Do you see that now?

clax · Jul 12, 2012

myp said:
Because you were wrong, yet insisted you were not. Because you put words in my mouth as you keep doing again and again. Do you see that now?

You just said what I have been saying. which is, science is not the complete answer, feelings are not just chemical, there is more to it.

Then you said I reject science completely because I don't think it answers the question. You jumped to conclusions.

myp · Jul 12, 2012

clax said:
You just said what I have been saying. which is, science is not the complete answer, feelings are not just chemical, there is more to it.

Then you said I reject science completely because I don't think it answers the question. You jumped to conclusions.

Wow. You said that I implied that experience plays no role in feelings. I proved you wrong since I never said that.

This is annoying. I hope you realize your mistake and if you do, I would advise you to look at other posts where I accuse you of doing the same thing (mischaracterizing my posts) because you do it A LOT. Maybe reflect on how you comprehend things because you seem to hit the reply trigger awfully quick and as a result don't even understand what the other person is saying before you respond.

And if you choose not to, I don't care. Have a goodnight, I don't have time to hold you hand through this.

Love?

Similar threads