Emotions in Science?

quote:

---

However it is like painting a house with water. When we attempt to describe things that are spiritual,

---

How do you know that emotions are spiritual? There is every indication that they are physical in basis and no indication that they are not.

quote:

---

seeing things from a purely scientific perspective denies that we exist.

---

Don't understand this at all.

quote:

---

The very nature of science does not allow for the essence of emotion.

---

What is "the very essence of emotion"?

quote:

---

Science with emotion is no longer science. It becomes religion.

---

How so?

quote:

---

Science does not allow for or will it ever recognize emotion or intent.

---

Um, then what are the Psycholoists who study, for example, motivation and emotion, do all day?

quote:

---

It cannot...that is both it's weakness and it's strength.
When using science to explore and define what makes us human we need to recognize that by nature it dehumanizes us.

---

How?

quote:

---

In any case, personal encounter with God cannot equal the electrical stimulation or for that matter experience with drugs. Chemcials or electrical stimulation cannot substitute for the real thing i.e: God.

---

How can you tell the difference?

quote:

---

For your kind information, Psychology is not an empirical science.

---

It most certainly is an empirical science.

quote:

---

I have only experienced God. I can talk about this. My brain has not been electrically or therapeutically stimulated.

---

Then how do you know it isn't exactly the same feeling when you "experience God" with or without electical or other stimulation of that region of the brain?

quote:

---

The atheistic neurophysiologist wants to prove that whatever anyone calls as God experience is not really thatone.

---

I don't know of any good scientist that "sets out" to prove such a thing, because it it impossible to prove a negative. A scientist only works with naturalistic explanations because they are operating under the rules of science, be they believer or unbeliever.

quote:

---

But is nothing but electircal stimulation of brain. Chances are that after I had experienced God, if I subject myself to electrical stimuation, I may be devastated. I am not intending to do this either. I do not need drugs( I have already been devastated by prescription drugs) anymore.

---

That's great, but you still haven't answered the question;How do you tell the difference between a "real" experience of God and a artificially stimulated experience of God?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-04-2006 08:15 PM

quote:

---

However it is true that the brain itself can be damaged with no apparent change to the mind.

---

This is often due to the redundancies present in the brain and the ability for it to compensate after an injury, and even develop new neural pathways.

quote:

---

And I think it is true that there can be damage done to the mind, which does not involve physical damage to the brain.

---

How can one define "damage" to a mind?

quote:

---

I have basically agreed with these scenarios in my previous post. It is the turning to meds on a wider basis where they are not needed and over prescribed that I object to. As I said...far too often they are turned to as THE solution.

---

I agree, and if you feel this way, your argument is with the medical and pharmaceutical, and to some degree, the political spheres, not with the scientific.Science makes discoveries about nature; it's the pharm. companies and medical folks who decide to develop, apply, and prescribe the drugs to people, and also the individual's decision to swallow the pills.