<p>“I find plenty of variations of this statement in your previous posts but I don’t understand what you mean. How does the pursuit of science undervalue the importance of emotions? Why do you think that we are pursing sciences at the expense of emotions?”</p>
<p>Like I said in my last post, I think some people place almost all value in science and ignore the emotional and spiritual elements of humans. As in, they think science explains everything, and won’t give value to emotional and spiritual arguments. Some people will not believe in something unless there is scientific evidence, but evidence in many cases are just theories that can’t be completely proven (anything involving the creation of earth and life). It doesn’t have to be a belief in god. I never said it did. People choose to ignore the emotional elements of life- in that they ignore emotional experiences in favor of “rational” explanations. Some people have no faith in the human experience. It’s hard to really describe it, but I am saddened by how quickly people discount things that have emotional backing for things with some scientific elements. But so many of the science people invest themselves into believing isn’t indisputable fact. Yes, I value some of what science provides, but it can’t answer every question I have. I am not saying I invest faith in a god, or a religion. I am talking about pure, raw emotion and human experiences. As in, you can’t give ascientific explanation for emotional connections, you just know that they exist. Things like that. I am in no way talking about religion. I am talking about emotion. A little bit of spirtuality, but discounting parts of science does not mean I am advocating theology or religion. People are so quick to assume that you either have faith in science or religion. I mean what people actually feel. What we feel and experience is more real than the theory of x, y or z. I choose to believe in what I consider to be real. Sometimes it’s emotions and feelings, sometimes it’s fact. They aren’t mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>Thanks for the explanation. I am still having a hard time following your thoughts, but I would like to understand your point of view. Can you give me an example of what you mean when you say that many scientists discount the human experience? I agree that most scientists prefer to believe in observable or “rational” phenomena. But emotions are perfectly observable. I think everyone wants to feel fulfilled; different people just turn to different sources for this fulfillment. </p>
<p>You said:
Can you give me an example? I am not sure I am interpreting it correctly and I don’t want to jump to quick conclusions about your position.</p>
<p>Well, human emotions Re now catargorize as chemical reactions and imbalances. Hallucinations are considered chemical imbalances, not as experiences. People constantly talk about doing rational things at the expense of emotional decisions. I loon at it like the brain and emotions are in conflict- the brain representing science and emotions representing emotions. I would say out of boy experiences are typically explained as a reaction, not as absolute truth. When people experience death, science talks about how the brain reacts, not the emotional experience. Near death experiences are explained in terms of chemistry and not emotion. When people have discussion, they tend to mock those who just go with their guy instinct. Look at how science mocks religion. I think religion is an act of faith coming from emotions that spur a belief in something else. This belief is built on an emotion, not reason. Yes, in some cases there is reason but spiritutual beliefs are built on emotions. Science ridicules religion because there isn’t proof of a god, but there also isn’t proof of no god. I’m not sure if that makes sense.</p>
<p>I guess my point is while I’m at school everyone is worried about the practical things- grades, internship and career, and aren’t worried about emotional fullfillment. They assume that part will come after choosing a career, they think material success will lead to happiness. They are more worried about finishing an assignment than exploring the subconscious. They think it’s immature or whatnot to spend time contemplating existence or just doing what you feel like doing. So many people want to be practical instead of explore their emotions. They count on science answering their questions instead of dealing with emotions. People just seem to ignore their instincts in favor of practicality, and I view practicality as scienctific.</p>
<p>^So you just don’t like neuroscience, then?</p>
<p>EDIT: cognitive neuroscience, to be specific.
Obviously science and emotions are in conflict, as one of the purposes of science is to analyze phenomena unemotionally.</p>
<p>Well they don’t even know what serotonin does, yet they prescribe medications with it. It’s helpful for some things, but it makes things impersonal. Certain chemicals result on certain reactions, but I think we should focus on what is felt instead of what reactions occur. The brain is an inexact science, and I have a feeling Noone will ever be able to conclude exactly how it works. Yes, it’s great for some medications, but I mean thy don’t even know why any seizure meds work on people who are bipolar. Which to me is interesting.</p>
<p>Well, yes, the brain is vastly more complex than probably anything else that exists and remains largely an enigma, but I don’t think that means we should end all scientific explorations of it or disregard scientific explanations of mental phenomena, if we have them. Obviously focusing on what is felt is probably more useful than focusing on how to induce emotions through chemical stimuli or whatever…but that sort of thing gets into a weird ethical territory anyway.
EDIT: I think they do know a lot about what serotonin does functionally, but do they know exactly how it does what it does on a reaction-to-reaction basis…probably not.</p>
<p>They know serotonin levels have some relation to happiness, but that’s about it. I just think spending all the time exploring the chemical element is important for the craetion of medications, but I don’t think they are going to be able to explain all things human through exploring chemical reactions in the brain. To an extent it is helpful, but it sones at the expense of discussing emotions.</p>
<p>Sometimes it has to go hand in hand though. You have to explore how cognition, etc. works chemically in order to treat someone with a psychopathological disorder with medications, right?
I do think that most sane people are able to separate their science from their “spirituality” or human feelings, though.</p>
<p>EDIT:serotonin does more than just relate to feelings of well-being, though.</p>
<p>I don’t see the conflict that you are seeing. Studying the biological or chemical processes in the brain during a hallucination or seizure or out-of-body experience seems to be just as legitimate as experiencing them. They are two sides of the same coin. Scientists are not denying that certain hallucinogen drugs provide an interesting experience, but they would like to understand the biological processes behind it.</p>
<p>
Some people actually want that impersonal numb feeling some antidepressants provide. If someone is having a hard time dealing with their present feelings, it might be convenient to block those feelings out for a little while and focus on the practical concerns of life first. I have been there.</p>
<p>In your earlier post you expressed some concerns about people choosing “rationality” and practical concerns over emotions and present-day fulfillment. I don’t think they are necessarily neglecting their mental health. They might choose to go against their current gut feeling with the expectation that this choice will lead to more happiness in the long run. They are as concerned about their emotional health, but they are approaching it from a different angle. (Heck, if I could do whatever I wanted to do, I would be playing video games and consume a variety of drugs all day. However, I need to make a living and I am convinced that I will be a lot happier next year if I have a stable income and a roof over my head, instead of vegetating as a homeless drug addict. I am choosing reason over my gut feeling but I am convinced that it will provide me with more fulfillment in the future.)</p>
<p>You are right that society looks down on people who make a lot of impulsive decisions based on emotions instead of using reason. Justified or not, there seems to be a perception that emotional decisions are often worse than rational decisions in the medium- to long-run.</p>
<p>
It’s interesting that you see it this way. I had the impression that scientists face much greater scrutiny from religious folks than the other way round. Most atheists happily live together with people of faith, but atheists and scientists are often attacked as immoral by religious organizations and individuals.</p>
<p>I think some of the “New Atheist” crowd have given Atheists in general a bad stereotype (depending on how you look at it). I think a lot of religious people may even feel threatened by them, so they lash out at any atheists they come across. Also, this probably goes without saying, but not all scientists are atheists (and vice-versa)–a testament to the separation of science and spirituality in one individual.</p>
<p>People at my school constantly lash out at religion. The religious students keep to themselves. </p>
<p>I mean scientists don’t think there’s truth in hallucinations or out of body experiences, it’s just a reaction to a drug. </p>
<p>I don’t think that many people want to feel numb from antidepressants. If anything, people complain about zombie states induced by doctors who over perscribe meds (as in high amount of the meds). A lot of people won’t take meds because of how they make them feel. Like I said, to an extent it’s important to know how things work, but we don’t even have a full understanding of how meds combat mental illness. </p>
<p>By gut reaction I mean those urges to just go do something you love or always wanted to do, as in just getting up and driving to a different city or going hiking or just taking a walk. Those urges to just get away from the routine of society. </p>
<p>People who choose to be practical are sometimes missing out. They just kind of choose conformity to being emotional. They seem like they’ll have a lot of regrets down the road for not exploring.</p>
<p>I think that fulfilling one’s emotional desires could actually be considered practical. I guess you are talking about the people who always put work first, which I can see being an issue unless they really love what they do. I don’t believe in regrets.</p>
<p>"I mean scientists don’t think there’s truth in hallucinations or out of body experiences, it’s just a reaction to a drug. "
Depends on what you mean by truth. Scientists would look at the discrepancy between stimuli and perception, see an inconsistency, and say there is no basis for it being considered “True.”</p>
<p>I concur with Lord Russell’s assessment:
"A hallucination is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it. "</p>
<p>I would define a hallucination as thoughts and sights forming from the subconscious. I think everything originates from the subconscious, and that your mind can’t control what is happening, meaning you can’t change what is happening and your perceptions can’t take control. It’s your subconscious running wild. I think it allows people to be completely honest, which is why the pyschology industry is probably so interested in it and recently tabled a discussion about it thearoputic uses.</p>
<p>“I think everything originates from the subconscious”
I don’t think that our perception of reality arises from the “subconscious”. What is the basis of this belief? Unless you mean that our “subconscious” influences our interpretation of things, in which case I agree. I think it would be difficult to determine where a hallucination “came from.” I think that allowing the “subconscious” to “run wild” would likely keep a person honest about themselves, but it wouldn’t make them necessarily right about anything.</p>
<p>The concept of subconscious is a bit ambiguous anyway, so it’s mostly avoided by academics and scientists. I think a better term would be “unconscious” as in mental influences that we are not always aware of.</p>
<p>Well while you hallucinate you have no control of your thoughts. You can’t change what you see or I influence your thoughts. It’s everything you’ve suppressed. It allows you to see your absolute truth- what you really think about yourself, others and the world. Things you’ve never explored before, and your views of things change because your perceptions are temporat unskewed.</p>
<p>Halogen (poster #3) is correct. How can you tell she assumed you were a Christian by just those four words? She was simply expressively evangelizing, regardless of your current beliefs.</p>
<p>Since people mentioned scientific theories a few times in this thread, I’d like to point out that in scientific terms, the word “theory” has a much different meaning than it does in everyday speech. </p>
<p>In everyday speech, a “theory” is an idea that might or might not have merit–“Hey Joe, something ate all the carrots in my garden. My theory is it’s aliens!”</p>
<p>In scientific terms, “aliens ate my carrots” is not a theory. It is an untested HYPOTHESIS. </p>
<p>A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has a buttload of supporting evidence and is pretty much proven. So if it’s proven, why is it a scientific theory instead of a scientific law? Because scientific laws are very direct and usually can be expressed mathematical statements. Theories are more complex and we don’t know every little thing about them. There are more details to be learned about them and they’re usually so complex that they can’t be expressed mathematically.</p>
<p>Getting back to the original post, I don’t mind “God bless you” or “I’ll pray for you” (if I’ve just confided I’m going through a hard time), but I don’t like it when people randomly tack on “Jesus loves you!” and so on. I was unfortunate enough to be sitting next to a woman who kept quizzing me on if I was personal friends with Jesus . . . while stuck on a four hour flight next to her. NOT fun. I wasn’t pestering her with my beliefs, I expected the same courtesy in return.</p>
<p>Lol, I remember how I use to attend a Canadian public school and they always had Christmas parties and made everyone partake. We decorated the tree, handed out gifts, and had Christmas concerts. During Easter we had egg hunts. It was funny because I was a Muslim at that time. But they took out any religious aspects when we celebrated those holidays, and we always got free gifts, so I wasn’t complaining :).</p>
<p>Honestly, what you went through doesn’t sound too bad. At least she isn’t shoving the Bible down your throat.</p>