Sounds like evolutionary psychology. IOW, you agree with theories that validate your experiences of a phenomenon?
It does not validate mine.
edit: I am talking of loss in a general sense, either loss per se or death.
If there is a soul what does it do in an afterlife
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Sounds like evolutionary psychology. IOW, you agree with theories that validate your experiences of a phenomenon?
It does not validate mine.
edit: I am talking of loss in a general sense, either loss per se or death.
As if there's a distinction? What kind of a question is that? If you feel love, your in love. There's nothing deeper than that. In fact, after the first rush of "true love", real love is a conscious choice to commit to another person.
What about loss of a parent? Where is the evolutionary significance of grief? Or a friend? Or a pet? Or strangers in a war or accident?
Anyway, isn't evolutionary psychology a theoretical field?
Sam, if we were callous about the value of our loved ones to us, how well do you think we would protect them? On an instictive, gut level? The feelings we experience serve to massively reinforce our protective natures. There's no mystery here. It's all biochemical.
This is evolutionary biophysiology, not psychology.
So where does violence come in? After all, a majority of violence is committed by people known to us. Most murder, abuse, etc is by intimate partners and friends or acquaintances.
Still theoretical.
PS. I've never heard of that field. Are you making this up as you go along?
I disagree. I think you're taking liberties here. Most murders and violence is by people known to the victim, yes, but certainly not classified as intimate partners and friends. The vast majority of good friends and loving couples don't kill each other.
Nope. Any human aspect can be studied in the light of evolutionary theory. In fact, there's virtually no field of human or societal studies that can be clearly understood without it.
I gotta go to bed.
ZZZzzzzzzzzz....
ZZZzzzzzzzzz....
Look at the statistics for any violent crime. The assailant is usually someone close to or known to the victim.
That's what I said. Night.
All still theoretical.
With never a doubt about it?
"Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend more than cool reason ever comprehends."
Jaundice/fever is not a disease or a cause of a disease but a symptom of it.
Similarly the symptoms of love need not be the same as the cause of love.
Actually, modern definitions of matter say that light isn't matter, electromagnetism isn't matter, gravity isn't matter, etc....Therefore they are "immaterial" (or not matter). For instance quarks and leptons are known as the smallest bits of "matter". You would never call gravity or electromagnetism matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
According to the definitions by Princeton, words meaning "not made of matter" would be "immaterial", "nonmaterial", "incorporeal". Its irrevelant if something is undetectable my science or not, in the past many things were undetectable, so what?
However if you equate "nature" with "material" (which would be foolish) then, gravity, electromagnetism, time, etc...are part of nature.
Actually, I already listed many theories suggesting consciousness exists independant of matter. The neural-correlate explanation fails on a Quantum level and fails at explaining the "hard problem of consciousness". What you're saying is that "even though there's a great possibility that consciousness exists independant of matter, I some how magically know that it isn't independant of matter". Not only this, but you don't even consider that consciousness can be independant of matter, this is blind faith, how ironic.
No, at arrive that conclusion to what is found in modern text books. I stated that most neurologists will tell you that there probably is more to consciousness than just neural activity. Go read one and see how many missing pieces there are in explaining consciousness based only on neural activity. Look up what the "hard problem of consciousness" is.
The fact is, atheists, using blind atheistic faith, do not even consider that consciousness can possibly be independantly of matter (and therefore continue on after the death of the body). You can't even handle that it can be true.
Also, you face a great dilemma. You state in this post that you believe whatever the evidence moves towards. But evidence is ever-changing, an ancient man has no reason to believe in electromagnetism, in other words, evidence is proof of something, but evidence doesn't cause something to be true. Its true with or without evidence. Oh yeah, prepare to be shocked.
Wow. You sound like an ignorant person. You're living in the past, using classical, newtonian physics.
Go read up on what "Quantum immorality" is. Atheists probably aren't fans of Quantum physics, because it makes many religious concepts very likely. Just as the Quantum immortality states you are immortal, so too does Vedantic philosophy state that atman or brahman is immortal, and inexhaustible, existing before material existence. Its no wonder that founders of Quantum Physics like Robert Oppenheimer became Vedantists.
Oh yeah, Stephen Hawkings believes in the Many-worlds-interpretation which would make "Quantum Immortality" true. Everything I say not only can be true, but is probable or likely.
Can't say that I am well read on "Quantum immorality" but I did notice the irksome way that the Universe refuses to conform to expectation every now and then, the way that it seems to need to be approved, not proved, the way it just doesn't want to care at all about us until we do, when we return some faith to it.