You have yet to explain anything. No. You have explained much. You have yet to give evidence to anything. No. You have yet to explain anything. I can't decide, both statements are true. The fact is, you tell us personality has nothing to do with your brain, yet YOU HAVE NOT TOLD US WHAT EVIDENCE YOU HAVE OF THIS OR WHERE IT THEN COMES FROM!!!!!!!!!!! TELL US!!!!!!!!!!! IF IT IS NOT THE BRAIN, THEN WHERE??????????????? You're very slowly driving me mad truthseeker. All your crap about being born with a personality proves nothing. Even if we are born with certain traits, it is becuase of the chemical make up of our brain and body. Xev - Kung-fu is the ultimate in martial arts in my opinion. Kung fu is about being able to take yourself away from earth and then dominate earth. I use to do mixed tournaments and the kung fu guys always won. The reason for this was that kung-fu, unlike most martial arts, teaches you a way of fighting which works against all other types of martial arts. Or rather, it teaches you how to decide what type of defence to use.
Nelson: Basing it on science (and Freud and Jung were not scientists) does not make it a science. Where is this proposed experiment? I missed it somhow. To look into our past? To examine the past? I have done that many, many times and I have not seen any evidence of a unchanging essence or soul. If anything, I see that I change over time. Okay, I guess you did explain. I was still a bit confused. Sorry. But you have yet to show evidence. If you have, and both Tyler and I missed it, could you please repeat it? Tyler: Thanks for the information. I shall definitly look into that, it sounds like somthing I would enjoy.
Scientific proof of how to get to your "real self"? Good grief Charlie Brown... Sports: My family breeds, trains, and rides horses, although I don't ride any more. Used to play squash, soccer, rugby, Australian rules football, and some others. Did some Wado Ryu karate years ago, then the stuff you do in the military. I went to a supposed ninja school a few years ago, and some guy had a go at me, and I got him in a headlock and punched and choked him until he quit; some bloody ninja he turned out to be. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A buddy of mine, an ex-cop, is heavily into Aikido. It works quite well fo him. It helps that he's 6'2" and about 300 pounds.
truthseeker, All emotions appear to be controlled by neuro-chemical activity. Love in particular seems to be caused by neuro-chemical activity reactions similar to that caused by some hallucinogenic drugs. That sense of giddy disorientation, unsinkable euphoria and complete obsession with a new love can be so overpowering it's hard to imagine it's all about emotion. Now scientists are confirming there indeed may be a lot more going on in a body that's in love than simple, happy thoughts. In fact, a spate of recent studies has zeroed in on exactly what kind of chemical and neurological activities occur at different stages of human and animal relationships. Try this news report from ABC. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/Holiday/scienceoflove010214.html Cris
I give up explaining this to you. It's just too simple for you to understand... Look to my signature... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson
No! Look to my sig! Cthulhu fhtagn! Thanks Cris. Very interesting. Shall we turn this into a discussion of sports?
Wow, I thought the science vs religion thread was difficult to comprehend. Truthseeker is surely an underdog here, but one thing comes across clearly in his posts--an intense desire to explain something that is purely subjective and painful at that. I suspect that relying on psychology to explain is imperfect at best because it is such an imperfect science. While I was working in the field, methods changed as often as the personnel. With people suffering from multiple personality disorder resulting from sexual abuse as children, I think the ideas he is trying to put across become clearer simply because of the intensity of the experience. Most of the literature in the field agrees that it is necessary to recombine the whole personality--especially with the innocent child that forms the basis of all future personality. The innocent, loving child really does take all the blame upon themselves for what occurs and retreats to an area that is safe for their "perfect love". Jesus said "suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Except ye be as a little child, you shall not enter the Kingdom. To suggest that personality is imprinted smacks of predestination. Just because God "knew" you from the womb doesn't mean He created a personality to do with as He pleased. It means it was a personality He could work with. Science does have something to say about the brain. It has it's counterpart in the Old Testament Sanctuary Service. There were two veils--one was at the entrance to the Holy Place, and the other allowed entrance into the Most Holy where perfect love was located as represented by the Shekinah Glory. The brain also has two veils called the dura mater and the arachnoid. You can't get to either the Most Holy place or that in the inner recesses of the brain by yourself. There's a definite process involved with each. In the case of the molested child, the untreated person exhibited all kinds of unhappy behavior resulting in broken relationships, estranged children, and often suicide. In the case of the unrepentant sinner, it resulted in separation from God and eventually death without hope. The whole concept of loving your enemies and forgiving "seventy time seven" deal entirely with your own mental and spiritual health. Bearing animosity for any length of time is detrimental to your health.
sonofbabylon, Thanks for support me... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What do you mean by underdog...? Thanks for the explanations... I was thinking of posting something about that in my other thread... now, you post it here... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Pretty much my case, the first one... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson
I'm gone from these boards in one post if truthseeker doesn't do one of the following things: A) Tell me where true self comes from if not from the brain (anatomically speaking); AND, give some evidence at least to support this B) Admitt that all things linked to personality and such are connected to the brain and the body Don't you dare fricken tell me one more time that you have done this. You have not. Read your posts genius, every time I say 'tell me where personality comes from then?' you say - I already told you! or ignore it completely.
Tyler, I would like to begin quoting the pscychologist who made the Junguian Pscychology, Carl Jung: "Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart ... Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens." Carl Jung ...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What he calls heart... I already said...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... means Essence. This is not the important here. You are too attached to physical things. We are talking about a feeling. We are not talking about something physical. So... stop asking this because there's no point on discussing this... Why should I admit that. Our thoughts comes from our mind... But there is something beyond: ourselves. And you want a proof, don't you? So use reason: If when you were a child, you couldn't recognize words in your brain, how did you learned? How did you discovered things if you didn't rationalize? Is there anything beyond our minds? Yes... our true personality... because as childs we couldn't rationalize... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson
Tyler: C'mon, stick around. Please? If he annoys you that bad, use the 'ignore' function? Sonofbabylon: Are you suggesting a link between being an 'unrepentant sinner' and an abused child? I haven't done much 'penting' lately....is that what 'Penthouse' is for? (Yes, I know that was a bad joke) No it's not.
Jung spoke metaphorically. Looking into your heart or yourself means looking into what drives you. What your motivations to do things are, what you truly feel and such. Your problem is in not realizing that these are still linked to the brain. "This is not the important here. You are too attached to physical things. We are talking about a feeling. We are not talking about something physical. So... stop asking this because there's no point on discussing this..." I don't know how many times I can say this, but; I understand perfectly what you're saying, you're just wrong. You're just, plain, wrong!!! FEELINGS COME FROM THE BRAIN Read earlier areas of this thread and listen to Cris as he explains the chemical reasoning behind love. Your emotions come from your brain, not from some spirit. Science has given evidence to suggest this COUNTLESS times. You have ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO evidence let alone proof to suggest your theory of personality existing outside the brain. Here is where you get to actually being a moron and making me leave: "If when you were a child, you couldn't recognize words in your brain, how did you learned? How did you discovered things if you didn't rationalize?" To some degree, babies rationalize. To some degree, apes without words rationalize. Your problem is that you seem to think words are the only way to think. That's so unbelievable wrong it disgusts me. It is possible to reason without words, you just don't do it because you've lived your whole life doing it. Take a shroom/acid trip, you'll get what I mean. When you stop thinking in words it doesn't mean you're thinking outside your brain, it means you're thinking without words. It's not a difficult concept, yet you seem to think words are all we have. Read a little neitzsche. I'm giving you a final chance. You have one chance and I am officially gone. Tell me where this 'true personality' exists (if you're talking about a 'spirit' then just fucking say it, don't jump around it). Then, give me some VALUABLE evidence to support this. On a note: - That we thought without words, IS NOT EVIDENCE - That we are born with personalities, IS NOT EVIDENCE (as all it is is PROOF that the chemical balance we are born with affects our personalities) - That we couldn't rationalize or reason as children, IS NOT EVIDENCE AS IT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!! You talk of finding a person's true self, you sound like a stoner. All you sound like is one of the countless encounters I've had with acid users. It's officially hurting my head how hard it is for you to understand this, but your personality is nothing more than a representation of the hormones and chemicals in your body mixed with how your personality developed during childhood and adult life. And how is it Cris won't pop in on this? Perhaps I'll have to come back and quote him as I doubt randomguessseeker won't bother going back to read what he wrote. Xev: I can't stick around if this is what's here. I came here hoping to find people much smarter and insightful into science than I, not someone with a groundless theory that contradicts all science fact we know. I can stand few things less than pure hatred, but ignorance is one of them.
Tyler, Stick around please. You’ve demonstrated an ability to think and we need such posters here. At the moment, well as of last weekend, I’ve just started a 3-week vacation so my time here is going to be very limited, so I’m choosing what to post based on ease and speed. You’ve doubtless realized by this time that TruthSeeker’s comments are sheer gibberish, and I agree his label is the opposite of what we observe. The real challenge is not the topic so much as more about how to deal with someone who refuses to debate based on reason and logic. That is the effect of religious indoctrination. If you more carefully look at his posting style you can observe his significant laziness, e.g. no attempt to provide justification for any of his claims, and frequent suggestions that you look for yourself. His adoption of a religion is inevitable with such an attitude. Religions specifically do not seek proofs or evidence (the essence of faith), and have already determined that a God is the answer to everything. Very convenient huh? But without his desire or ability to debate with reason you will simply become frustrated when you do follow the rules and he doesn’t. The typical religionist does not base their claims on reality, and there is little we can do to convince them of the need to do otherwise. This means that any reasoned argument you present will be simply dismissed because it may not match with their fantasies. I have not found any effective method of dealing with the purely irrational people such as Truthseeker, apart from simply ignoring them. I just hope they don’t get their hands on nuclear weapons. Bin Laden was of the same ilk, and his actions have been bad enough. As for Brain activity: Then yes I think you are on the right track. From the moment the brain starts to form, neural networks begin to form based almost entirely on sensory input. There is some hard-wiring that allows basic functions and there are many hereditary effects that pre-dispose some areas to be stronger than others in some people, including survival traits, but other than those features the brain is effectively a clean slate in the growing infant. All memories, skills, and knowledge must be learnt as the new human grows and exercises its curiosity. Cris
Tyler I recall reading a medical research report from somewhere recently about ideas that, since our brains and nervous system are of similar materials, there is a possibility that such thigns as thoughts, feelings, memories and so on are stored not just in the brain but throughout our bodies in some way. No, this does not mean you will forget your first five years of life if you have your leg amputated. But the idea was that there is a commonality across all these cells throughout the body. I'm not sure how far this research has progressed, and I don't know if there have been any positive results at all, but one example cited was about such things as a woman who has never driven a car or such in her entire life receiving a heart transplant and suddenly being able to drive cars and ride motorcycles, and so on. One more thing: It is weakness to let others guide your actions. If you choose to leave sciforums, do it because you want to, not because someone else drives you to it. But I for one would rather you didn't, since, as Cris said, your posts are worth reading.
I give the hell up! Tyler: There are lots of people knowledgeable in science here. There are also quite a few skeptics (Look here: http://www.sciforums.com/t6495/s/thread.html). This thread is not representative..... Of course it's your decision, and I won't beg you to stay but - please please please please please? Nelson: FEELINGS ARE PHYSICAL! http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n02/historia/phineas.htm http://www.co.broward.fl.us/mei00211.htm http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Mosher2.html We don't need language to reason. And, we gained the ability to rationalize after the brain began to develop. But the ability to rationalize can easily develop! It is not all or nothing!
Well, due largely to Xev and Cris' support as well as Adam's comments; it would be both foolish and childesh of me to leave because of this one thread. Cris: Enjoy your vacation, don't worry about this. I just kind of got surprised when you're chemical explinations of love were around so much in debate with me but not truthseeker. Thank you for posting here! Adam: That's an interesting study and one I'd like to read. Though I'm not sure how factual it is, it's probably very intriguing. Xev: Thank you for your support, and I will stick around! And thank you for continuosly supporting the side I took up in this debate!
I agree. The whole point of the thread is to debate Love, not chemical reactions! Truly, you guys are not only cold but can't understand anything that is worth listening... Love, Nelson
Truthseeker I want you to read this and understand it: You are the single worst debater in this forum I have encountered. You avoid the questions we pose. You do not give evidence to support your arguements. You have shown huge disrespect to myself and Xev in not having the guts to consider how wrong you are and not even backing your groundless theories. You wish to believe love is something more than chemical reactions. That's great, I do to. The difference is, I have the ability to disregard what I wish and face facts and evidence. The beauty is that despite understanding the scientific reasoning behind love, I can still enjoy it. It's possible to accept the evidence and truths and then realize how little they matter to you. What matters, I think, to you, is that love is a beautiful thing. You see this scientific, cold, explination of love and it becomes less romantic. Well, yes, it does become less romantic. But only if you let it. Like I said, it's possible to know the truth and then realize how little the scientific truth matters because love is love and no amount of scientific insight is going to change that.
LOVE IS A CHEMICAL REACTION! Hmph. You obviously have not been reading the contributions of Tyler or Cris. Okay, no flirting. Proves ad hominem. Er, no. We understand perfectly, but you are wrong. Tyler: Excellent. (But, I did not continuosly support you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - look to the second page) All: Of course love is chemically based. Does this in any way diminish it? Other than, perhaps injecting a bit of rationality into a rather irrational emotion, I cannot see how knowing this diminishes the strength of the emotion. It is rather like the thiestic argument that morality is impossible without believing in imaginary Gods. Experiance proves it false.
tyler Truthseeker I want you to read this and understand it: You are the single worst debater in this forum I have encountered. I personally consider Truthseeker to be a master debater. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
