Where Is Heaven?

[+Sherapy]

24 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Scientifically, there is no evidence that love exists. Brain neuron interactions, yes. Love, no.

Can you provide proof that you are actually loving anything?

 

 

When I read J’s post, I felt a rush of dopamine. 

http://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvard-mahoney-neuroscience-institute/brain-newsletter/and-brain-series/love-and-brain

[XenoFish]

Love is just a chemical, we give it meaning by choice.

[Mr Walker]

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You never gave me my little brothers middle name.

Yoir still getting confused, why you imagine is not always so, once again, our attempts at creating flying saucers were a laugh and nothings going to change those aerodynamics. 

Your still getting confused with what is possible and what you imagine to be possible. 

No we are too heavy your in fantasy land again. 

https://www.wired.com/2012/01/why-cant-humans-fly-like-birds/

No we could not you would still die straight away is naked. 

And I'm bored if you repeating yourself, your silly ideas were not even remotely interesting to begin with. 

Well no. Only in your imagination. 

And yet it was impossible for you to offer my little brothers middle name. So much for you growing wings. 

Its what I said could not happen. I don't care about your imagination, things are impossible otherwise you would have posted my little brothers middle name and not gone of on some long winded tangent about how much you can imagine, don't care. But I did prove that it is impossible for you to post my little brothers middle name in the time frame given. You failed. Don't care if you imagine things that you think are a get out of jail card, you failed the impossible challenge. 

I don't think you have the understanding of future science to get my points.  Genetic matriculation would create light boned and framed humans like birds and enhance or speed up our metabolism. Combined with  genetically engineered wings   the y could then fly.

  A force field shield would stop all heat and other radiant energy from  the sun and so you could walk upon that shield. You could also wear a force field suit to protect yourself  form the other dangers of space like  vacuum 

 You seem trapped in present science and technology  It is almost as if  something scares you about  the future.

That is the only reason I can see why you would refuse to think about it, or look at human potential in the future.  Do you really think things will just stay the same or similar to how they are now during the next 200 years or so  ?  I have to assume you  KNOW what the world was like 200 years ago and how incredibly advanced it has become in just that 200 years. Things will change just as  fundamentally, and even faster, during the next 200 years.  

Edited March 20, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Love is just a chemical, we give it meaning by choice.

 That is not love at all.

Love is an intellectual or cognitive construct which  we develop in our minds, sometimes from reading, often, from being loved by others.  It does not have to have a chemical component at all, but that mix of chemicals  combines lust and physical attraction with the intellectual construct  to create a short term bond.  Love does not inherently have to contain any physical attraction or lust for another    it is a pattern of neurological energy which creates a state of mind that  we recognise as love.

Thus, i can construct and hold that powerful feeling of love in my mind,  for my parents, wife, or other loved ones,  for 40, or 60 years, or more, without it changing or diminishing,   whereas if it was a chemical based  response it would not endure 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Mr Walker

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't think you have the understanding of future science to get my points. 

I understand it quite well, much better then you it seems. You seem to think your fantasies are reality somthing like the people who envisioned a flying saucer in every garage by the year 2,000. 

You see I quite like listening to Michio Kaku, who is a futurist. And while he can get a little carried away, he is mundane next to your wild imagination. People do this professionally, you don't and your responses illustrate that clearly. 

Quote

Genetic matriculation would create light boned and framed humans like birds and enhance or speed up our metabolism. Combined with  genetically engineered wings   the y could then fly.

No it wouldn't because that would cause other greater anatomical problems particularly with our back. And the size of the wings grows proportionaly to ridiculous inefficient sizes. Your way out of your depth yet again walker. Your speaking utter nonsense. 

Quote

  A force field shield would stop all heat and other radiant energy from  the sun and so you could walk upon that shield.

No it wouldn't. 

Quote

You could also wear a force field suit to protect yourself  form the other dangers of space like  vacuum 

That's not walking naked on the surface of the sun. 

Quote

 You seem trapped in present science and technology  It is almost as if  something scares you about  the future.

No, your views are as unrealistic as your imaginary alien god friend who meets you for chats in your backyard. 

I can only see the most uninformed people considering your wild fantasies as even plausible. 

Quote

That is the only reason I can see why you would refuse to think about it, or look at human potential in the future.

Because your ego is blocking your reflection in the mirror. 

The problem lies with you, not science. 

Quote

  Do you really think things will just stay the same or similar to how they are now during the next 200 years or so  ?  I have to assume you  KNOW what the world was like 200 years ago and how incredibly advanced it has become in just that 200 years. Things will change just as  fundamentally, and even faster, during the next 200 years.  

And because we advance does not mean your imagination is validated. I know things will change, heck if the religious and spiritual nutters get enough numbers to gain momentum, we could be back in 11th century living before we know it. Some insist in maintaining that way of thinking today after all. 

Your just not realistic in your expectations or predictions. Your view of the future is unrealistic and rather immature. 

I just suspect you think that is a place to flex your fantasies and believe you are relieved of accountability. 

I've often posted links to the mockumentary The Thousand Year Old Man. Have you ever watched it? Michio Kaku has an entire series with several seasons on applying science to science fiction as a futurist. It's called Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible. Those guys are pushing the boundaries, your just being stubborn and rather silly. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci_Fi_Science:_Physics_of_the_Impossible

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

 That is not love at all.

Love is an intellectual or cognitive construct which  we develop in our minds, sometimes from reading, often, from being loved by others.  It does not have to have a chemical component at all, but that mix of chemicals  combines lust and physical attraction with the intellectual construct  to create a short term bond.  Love does not inherently have to contain any physical attraction or lust for another    it is a pattern of neurological energy which creates a state of mind that  we recognise as love.

Thus, i can construct and hold that powerful feeling of love in my mind ,  for my parents, wife, or other loved ones,  for 40, or 60 years, or more, without it changing or diminishing,   whereas if it was a chemical based  response it would not endure 

So what Xeno said then. You gave it meaning. 

[nephili]

7 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Love is just a chemical, we give it meaning by choice.

I'll not get into it with a master debater such as yourself, but love is not just a chemical or a chemical response. That is a little sad that you could believe that is all it is.

The entire process of stimulating the brain's pleasure receptors and the instinct behind the chemical responses is way more magical than "Love is just a chemical". If you look at your children and you believe that love is just a chemical, your immense logic has failed you. But I decided a while back I'll not argue belief anymore. I just know you are a dad and it is more than that.

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, nephili said:

I'll not get into it with a master debater such as yourself, but love is not just a chemical or a chemical response. That is a little sad that you could believe that is all it is.

The entire process of stimulating the brain's pleasure receptors and the instinct behind the chemical responses is way more magical than "Love is just a chemical". If you look at your children and you believe that love is just a chemical, your immense logic has failed you. But I decided a while back I'll not argue belief anymore. I just know you are a dad and it is more than that.

Would saying that love is a chemically driven instinct be better? 

The thing everyone seem to focus on is "love is just a chemical", yet they forget "we give it meaning by choice". 

Just because something is just brain chemistry doesn't mean it devalues the thought/intention behind it. 

[XenoFish]

I would say it in a different way. That the endorphin rush people get from exercise doesn't lessen the benefits.

Am I making sense? 

[Will Due]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You gave it meaning. 

 

But science does not support the existence of mind, appart from the brain. Science says the brain is a machine, like my lawnmower. Lawnmowers, like all machines, do not process meanings. 

So how can you give meaning to something?

 

 

[nephili]

8 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Would saying that love is a chemically driven instinct be better?

 

 

I think that's backwards.

I think it is instinct driven chemcals.

What do you consider perception, personality, memory or instict to be? They are not chemicals. They're all the brain functions that cause the chemical reactions to start and lead to the emotional responses. Does the brain functions that cause these chemicals have nothing to do with feelings like love(or hate) in your opinion? I think it does and I think there is much more to it than love is just a bunch of random gland secretions and hormones.

Some people hear their mother's voice and get a rush of oxytocin and feel happy. Others associate mom with negative emotions and get the exact opposite. It's way deeper than just chemicals and the decision of if it means anything or not. In my opinion.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, nephili said:

I think that's backwards.

I think it is instinct driven chemcals.

What do you consider perception, personality, memory or instict to be? They are not chemicals. They're all the brain functions that cause the chemical reactions to start and lead to the emotional responses. Does the brain functions that cause these chemicals have nothing to do with feelings like love(or hate) in your opinion? I think it does and I think there is much more to it than love is just a bunch of random gland secretions and hormones.

Some people hear their mother's voice and get a rush of oxytocin and feel happy. Others associate mom with negative emotions and get the exact opposite. It's way deeper than just chemicals and the decision of if it means anything or not. In my opinion.

Perhaps I did get that backwards......it happens.

Well looking at it from this perspective. I'd say that the chemical effects are a result of primal instinct and in some ways a type of pavlov conditioning. Dang you girl. Now I gotta do some research.

[nephili]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Perhaps I did get that backwards......it happens.

Well looking at it from this perspective. I'd say that the chemical effects are a result of primal instinct and in some ways a type of pavlov conditioning. Dang you girl. Now I gotta do some research.

It becomes a reflexive response system. With epigenetics it could even physiologically program you for certain responses.

But I believe the response system including memory responses are intriguing. Definitely worth a lot of attention. Some would call it consciousness and I can't argue that. Some would call it your soul. I would argue that if it did any good.

But I think your consciousness that responds and recognizes the feeling of the chemicals is what makes things like love, chemicals and all, so much more.

I'll step off of the soap box now.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, nephili said:

It becomes a reflexive response system. With epigenetics it could even physiologically program you for certain responses.

But I believe the response system including memory responses are intriguing. Definitely worth a lot of attention. Some would call it consciousness and I can't argue that. Some would call it your soul. I would argue that if it did any good.

But I think your consciousness that responds and recognizes the feeling of the chemicals is what makes things like love, chemicals and all, so much more.

I'll step off of the soap box now.

You're doing a fine job. This is food for thought and I'm hungry. lol

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

But science does not support the existence of mind, appart from the brain. Science says the brain is a machine, like my lawnmower. Lawnmowers, like all machines, do not process meanings. 

A lawnmower hasn't evolved conscious. 

Seriously, you must be baiting, nobody is that thick. 

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

So how can you give meaning to something?

By applying developed responses. It's pretty darn simple, if this is your reason for belief your doing it wrong. 

[Guyver]

On 3/18/2018 at 6:02 PM, Mr Walker said:

No although that would help recreate a natural and balanced ecosystem on earth Heaven is a human concpet and thus dependent human perception for the conditions to be fulfilled   If your  mind believes oyu are living in conditions which fulfil those you believe to exist in heaven, then you are living in heaven.

Yeah.  It’s just that every thing is a human concept for us.  So, the real gig is....do we continue to exist when we die physically....or does it even matter?

i think of Rudger Hauer in Blade Runner ruminating the loss of his life at his end, and Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce meeting his elders.  Either way, we all go out....what comes after that isn’t known.  Is it?

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, nephili said:

It becomes a reflexive response system. With epigenetics it could even physiologically program you for certain responses.

But I believe the response system including memory responses are intriguing. Definitely worth a lot of attention. Some would call it consciousness and I can't argue that. Some would call it your soul. I would argue that if it did any good.

But I think your consciousness that responds and recognizes the feeling of the chemicals is what makes things like love, chemicals and all, so much more.

I'll step off of the soap box now.

I disagree. Love can be as deep as the ocean and end with a finger snap. That's not special anymore, if it was more than chemicals I propose the bond would be deeper. Penguins mate for life, yet many of us are far more shallow than that changing partners and being 'in love' several times in a lifetime, I don't see that as 'special' many species mate for life that are more rudimentary in behaviour and don't express the bonds we glorify, that's obviously a mating instinct that favours procreation. I don't see why it's not more than that. Love is something we glorify and we know we get chemical rewards for being in love. That's an outside influence. It's not special it's chemical. The thing is, some chemicals have awesome effects, that's how we get dependencies. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Yeah.  It’s just that every thing is a human concept for us.  So, the real gig is....do we continue to exist when we die physically....or does it even matter?

i think of Rudger Hauer in Blade Runner ruminating the loss of his life at his end, and Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce meeting his elders.  Either way, we all go out....what comes after that isn’t known.  Is it?

What isn't know is if some Fantastical process makes the human dream of an afterlife true. People claim its the case but when push comes to shove, there's nothing to support the notion. As you have mentioned we create concepts to help us grasp things, we just shouldnt rest at those concepts and call them final, they should motivate us to dig deeper. 

What we do know strongly illustrates that death is final. 

[nephili]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I disagree. Love can be as deep as the ocean and end with a finger snap. That's not special anymore, if it was more than chemicals I propose the bond would be deeper. Penguins mate for life, yet many of us are far more shallow than that changing partners and being 'in love' several times in a lifetime, I don't see that as 'special' many species mate for life that are more rudimentary in behaviour and don't express the bonds we glorify, that's obviously a mating instinct that favours procreation. I don't see why it's not more than that. Love is something we glorify and we know we get chemical rewards for being in love. That's an outside influence. It's not special it's chemical. 

Feel free to disagree.

Mating and love are not the same. Your logic is ridiculous, but ok. The love I feel for my children doesn't fit your mold and it will not end at the snap of a finger. Even in death. Sorry you are wrong there. It makes me wonder if you know what real love feels like if you think it ends like that.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by nephili

[Will Due]

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

A lawnmower hasn't evolved conscious. 

Seriously, you must be baiting, nobody is that thick. 

By applying developed responses. It's pretty darn simple, if this is your reason for belief your doing it wrong. 

 

No. This is your reason for belief.

If science does not produce objective evidence for something, then it isn't true and/or it doesn't exist.

Here's a list of some of those things:

• God
• Spirit
• Mind

So to be consistent scientifically, you're no different than my mindless lawnmower. 

 

 

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, nephili said:

Feel free to disagree.

And of course your entitled to your opinions, that's what discussion is, sharing opinions

Quote

Mating and love are not the same. Your logic is ridiculous, but ok.

What do you find illogical specifically? 

Quote

The love I feel for my children doesn't fit your mold and it will not end at the snap of a finger. Even in death.

Me too, but that's not universal by any means. Sweat shops, adoption agencies and too many accounts of child abuse prove this isn't the case. Some  of us show deep compassion for offspring some don't. That tells me it's how the individual faces life. I'm many cases it's more like continuing existance. YEC parents teaching their children cultural ideology can be considered a form of abuse but they love them. 

Quote

Sorry you are wrong there. It makes me wonder if you know what real love feels like if you think it ends like that.

If that's the case how do explain divorce? It's rampant. Love ends in a finger snap thousands of times every day. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

No. This is your reason for belief.

I don't give belief any special meaning, I give the real world, what we experience every day, what you can see hear and feel precedence over some personal fantasy for personal comfort. 

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

If science does not produce objective evidence for something, then it isn't true and/or it doesn't exist.

Here's a list of some of those things:

• God
• Spirit
• Mind

There are better explainations. Before we understood physics and biology it was the best answer we had and therefore more than acceptable, today we have bettered those early theories. 

It really is as simple as that. Hanging onto those early ideologies I feel illustrates the weakness of our development. 

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

So to be consistent scientifically, you're no different than my mindless lawnmower. 

No, you don't understand science and don't want to. That much is painfully obvious. You analogy not only fails, it's immature. 

[nephili]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What do you find illogical specifically? 

Love and mating are not even related. Love is an emotion. Mating is the act of reproduction.

 

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If that's the case how do explain divorce? It's rampant. Love ends in a finger snap thousands of times every day. 

Because many people can't tell the difference in love and the primal urge to mate the heck out of someone.

Also divorce is much more socially accepted now.

[Guyver]

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What isn't know is if some Fantastical process makes the human dream of an afterlife true. People claim its the case but when push comes to shove, there's nothing to support the notion. As you have mentioned we create concepts to help us grasp things, we just shouldnt rest at those concepts and call them final, they should motivate us to dig deeper. 

What we do know strongly illustrates that death is final. 

Peoples’ thought of or concept of the afterlife may or may not reflect its nature if it exists, which it may.  It’s like saying that peoples’ idea of God makes God like that.  People may not have a clue what God is like and it doesn’t mean God is nonexistent.  God may or may not exist.

The physical death of the body, as it returns to the Earth certainly appears final.....yes.  I don’t argue that.  But when you get down to it, that’s not what is argued in this sense.  People are talking about a life essence they call spirit which may exist after the body is dead.  

 

[nephili]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

 

Me too, but that's not universal by any means. Sweat shops, adoption agencies and too many accounts of child abuse prove this isn't the case. Some  of us show deep compassion for offspring some don't. That tells me it's how the individual faces life. I'm many cases it's more like continuing existance. YEC parents teaching their children cultural ideology can be considered a form of abuse but they love them. 

 

On this, I can't even relate to the poor children mentioned. I feel sorry they don't have parents that love them like I love my kids. But also, that has no relevance to how much I love my children.