It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
My point here is still valid, because however love is defined, i can still make a very accurate prediction to whether someone feels that way or not.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier
LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.
...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.
It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.
It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.
If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.
The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...
They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.
This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.
What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.
Even if it is just an evaluation of how they treat that person. I don’t really need all the machines.
This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.
This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.
There is no point in science exploring vague claims.
In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.
Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.
What is love?
Baby don’t hurt me
Don’t hurt me
No more
We could come to some mutual agreement on how to define it. And as soon as that is done, we can set parameters and see if the individual falls within that window. Whether their face flushes when they are shown an image of that person. If they take care of that person and treat them well. The Definition of love is subjective, but a body reacts in certain ways when they are psychologically attached to someone like a spouse or a sibling.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
My point here is still valid, because however love is defined, i can still make a very accurate prediction to whether someone feels that way or not.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier
LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.
...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.
It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.
It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.
If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.
The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...
They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.
This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.
What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.
Even if it is just an evaluation of how they treat that person. I don’t really need all the machines.
This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.
This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.
There is no point in science exploring vague claims.
In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.
Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.
What is love?
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TerryDon79
Damn it I been Rick rolled
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: visitedbythem
God created science
Man created God in his own image
originally posted by: Woodcarver
We could come to some mutual agreement on how to define it. And as soon as that is done, we can set parameters and see if the individual falls within that window. Whether their face flushes when they are shown an image of that person. If they take care of that person and treat them well. The Definition of love is subjective, but a body reacts in certain ways when they are psychologically attached to someone like a spouse or a sibling.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
My point here is still valid, because however love is defined, i can still make a very accurate prediction to whether someone feels that way or not.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier
LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.
...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.
It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.
It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.
If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.
The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...
They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.
This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.
What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.
Even if it is just an evaluation of how they treat that person. I don’t really need all the machines.
This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.
This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.
There is no point in science exploring vague claims.
In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.
Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.
What is love?
originally posted by: HiddenWaters
Would there have been “gods” before we started writing? And, what proof do you have of that? I am a Catholic, devout, I MEAN I BELIEVED IT!, it has been a chain around my ankle! But. Beside the written “WORD” we have no proof of a GOD, or gods, for that matter. a reply to: luthier
originally posted by: Kandinsky
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: visitedbythem
God created science
Man created God in his own image
Seven words that explain all religions.
Modern revision: Men created gods in their own image.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TerryDon79
Damn it I been Rick rolled
That’s the wrong song (rick astleys never gonna give you up).
What is love? is by haddaway.
originally posted by: HiddenWaters
That is not what I asked. Beyond that, do you have proof we, or any previous entity on this planet acknowledged a GOD, there is no proof of a biologic disposotion to believe in anything beyond current biologic needs,we are predispostioned cause we want an easy fix, instilled by LEADERS, ultimately we get it done cause we are being paid, otherwise, we are surviving for our family. a reply to: luthier
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: HiddenWaters
Would there have been “gods” before we started writing? And, what proof do you have of that? I am a Catholic, devout, I MEAN I BELIEVED IT!, it has been a chain around my ankle! But. Beside the written “WORD” we have no proof of a GOD, or gods, for that matter. a reply to: luthier
Boyer has written about an anthropological and biological predisposition to believing.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier
You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.
No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.
This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.
originally posted by: dug88
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier
You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.
No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.
This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.
No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.
There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier
You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.
No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.
This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.
No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.
There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?
So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.
originally posted by: dug88
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier
You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.
No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.
This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.
No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.
There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?
So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.
Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....