We Actually Do Know that Literal “Spirits” Aren’t Real

[Peppermint Patty]

Analytics,

This came across my feed the other day. I was wondering what your thoughts were, about these recent findings by the James Webb Space Telescope? It looks like there have been several new peer reviewed papers on these recent findings. 

 

Quote

Recent models have favored a cold dark matter scenario, in which structures emerge by the gradual accumulation of particles, but after a half century of fruitless dark matter particle searches, more recent gravitational wave and James Webb Space Telescope observations have considerably strengthened the case for primordial and direct collapse black holes.^[14][16][17]

Dark matter - Wikipedia

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This can and will be accomplished without you.

Well, they are 10 and 12, so they still need me (and even admit that for now). In a few years some of my purpose will certain shift to making sure they don't pass on my inherited genes too soon.

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I learned some time ago to stop beating my head against the wall on this site, which is why my participation here has been reduced by 95%. 

I only chime in a few times a year. I don't know how the servers handled you participating 20x more than you do now.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Well, they are 10 and 12, so they still need me (and even admit that for now). In a few years some of my purpose will certain shift to making sure they don't pass on my inherited genes too soon.

Absolutely. What meaningful activity and personal meaning will continue after their reproductive maturity so that they pass on what are now their genes within the constraints of a society and environment that has evolved to reduce the perpetuation of the species? You no longer need your genes now that you've passed them on and are using up more resources than you are producing. Please don't take this personally; I know it can sound nasty but I'm just trying to be objective and realistic!

Edited May 6, 2024 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

This was the essence of my wedding proposal to my wife.

I hope she had read Philosophical Investigations first, but married you anyway.

 

 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

I have no idea where you got that from. I guess I share their pacifism, but that's about it.

I've just entered the Twilight Zone then. I could have sworn you are in Mexico and were once attending an LDS ward but not a member with your wife but then you quit going to the ward because of how you were treated towards the end. You were posting quite often, not just a few times a year. You also are a historian who even speaks at conferences, LDS ones too, like the Mormon History ones. 

Have I gone bonkers?

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've just entered the Twilight Zone then. I could have sworn you are in Mexico and were once attending an LDS ward but not a member with your wife but then you quit going to the ward because of how you were treated towards the end. You were posting quite often, not just a few times a year. You also are a historian who even speaks at conferences, LDS ones too, like the Mormon History ones. 

Have I gone bonkers?

I don't doubt you. You nailed me after I'd been inactive here for like a decade +/-

 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't doubt you. You nailed me after I'd been inactive here for like a decade +/-

 

Are you sure, that could have been Calm. But if you say so.

[Raingirl]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've just entered the Twilight Zone then. I could have sworn you are in Mexico and were once attending an LDS ward but not a member with your wife but then you quit going to the ward because of how you were treated towards the end. You were posting quite often, not just a few times a year. You also are a historian who even speaks at conferences, LDS ones too, like the Mormon History ones. 

Have I gone bonkers?

That was somebody else. Can’t remember his user name off the top of my head. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Are you sure, that could have been Calm. But if you say so.

You could be right. 🤷

[Stormin' Mormon]

38 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

That was somebody else. Can’t remember his user name off the top of my head. 

I think @Tacenda is referring to Navidad.  Which isn't THAT far off of "Narrator."  So the confusion is understandable.  

Edited May 6, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

This came across my feed the other day. I was wondering what your thoughts were, about these recent findings by the James Webb Space Telescope? It looks like there have been several new peer reviewed papers on these recent findings.

You might need to be a bit more specific. There are a couple of things (https://www.google.com/search?q=jwst+dark+matter&sca_upv=1&sca_upv=1&tbm=nws). For example:

A portion of dark matter being self interacting (e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jwst-might-have-spotted-the-first-dark-matter-stars/)
Large galaxies too soon, too many (e.g. https://cns.utexas.edu/news/research/james-webb-space-telescope-images-challenge-theories-how-universe-evolved )
Primordial or direct collapse supermassive black holes vs accretion super massive black holes (e.g. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/stars-cant-explain-black-holes-jwst/)

Lots of things. Nothing really that directly challenges the idea of dark matter so much as refining/adjusting the concept. When it comes to science news, the popular media really, really loves to be overly sensationalistic in their headline (most often the article authors don't even write the headlines but some editor who wants more clicks).

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You no longer need your genes now that you've passed them on and are using up more resources than you are producing

It's not enough to just pass on the genes to offspring. We're a multigenerational species, where until recently it was very common for multiple generations to live in one home. Just as us parents are inherently and biologically motivated to not just pass on our genes but to also ensure that our children are able to pass them on as well, we're likely also genetically prone to want to care for our grandchildren after that for the same reason. You can see this play out in how Mormon parents and grandparents typically picture their forever family in heaven, which is usually the couple looking downward, including their kids and possibly grandchildren, and far less likely to be including the generations above them. (Or in the case of my MIL, who likely dreams of a heaven with just her husband and 8 children.)

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think @Tacenda is referring to Navidad.  Which isn't THAT far off of "Narrator."  So the confusion is understandable.  

Thank you Stormin! That's the one, Navidad. Okay, I think I've come back to senses I hope.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I've just entered the Twilight Zone then. I could have sworn you are in Mexico and were once attending an LDS ward but not a member with your wife but then you quit going to the ward because of how you were treated towards the end. You were posting quite often, not just a few times a year. You also are a historian who even speaks at conferences, LDS ones too, like the Mormon History ones. 

Have I gone bonkers?

I've never been to Mexico. My SP did treat me horribly a decade ago, which helped me realize the community was not for me. I was far more active on this site like 15 years ago when I was in grad school. This would have been when DCP, Chris Smith, Dan McLellen, and other were more involved. Not a historian, but I have presented at multiple Mormon studies conferences, including some history ones a few times, I think.

So maybe you've just gone half bonkers.

[the narrator]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thank you Stormin! That's the one, Navidad. Okay, I think I've come back to senses I hope.

Riddle solved!

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I hope she had read Philosophical Investigations first, but married you anyway.

She had not, and she got an early lesson on Wittgensteinian philosophy when she found out 6 months later that I don't believe in an afterlife.

"Why did you marry me for eternity if you don't think we're going to live forever?!?!?!?"

"Babe, I viewed it as committing myself to establishing a relationship with you that I would want to be in forever if I were forced to live the cosmic horror of immortality."

She found that quite romantic.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, the narrator said:

It's not enough to just pass on the genes to offspring. We're a multigenerational species, where until recently it was very common for multiple generations to live in one home. Just as us parents are inherently and biologically motivated to not just pass on our genes but to also ensure that our children are able to pass them on as well, we're likely also genetically prone to want to care for our grandchildren after that for the same reason. You can see this play out in how Mormon parents and grandparents typically picture their forever family in heaven, which is usually the couple looking downward, including their kids and possibly grandchildren, and far less likely to be including the generations above them. (Or in the case of my MIL, who likely dreams of a heaven with just her husband and 8 children.)

I find this to be an example of rationalizing a bias. "...we're likely also genetically prone?" Anthropologists and sociologists generally assume that we do have some inherited reproductive and social instincts as we've discussed already, but that familial mores as you describe are not so much genetic and are learned and passed on through social interaction and indulged in as far as resources permit. What you are describing is more of a social evolution, which is what many religions entail (such as gathering and preparing a peculiar people).

These religions answer the "why" questions which in turn drive the behaviors and generational interdependencies. The Church frames this in terms of the spirit of Elijah ("...plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers," "they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect," "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers," etc.). It has to do with social legitimacy tied to material holdings, divine inheritances here and in heaven, etc.

[the narrator]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

but that familial mores as you describe are not so much genetic and are learned and passed on through social interaction and indulged in as far as resources permit.

You are severely underestimating the extent that genetics plays in our behavior. In the last decade there have been many papers published showing how genetics plays a role in grandparenting--particularly grandmothers, including a theory that menopause exists to turn mothers into grandmothers, which would have been a significant benefit in hunter-gatherer societies.

It was absolutely incredible to see my two poodles know how to take care of their puppies immediately after they were born without any kind of training whatsoever. It would be very odd if we were not likewise genetically encoded with behaviors and desires that benefit the continuation of our genes, which would involve both our children and our grandchildren.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

You are severely underestimating the extent that genetics plays in our behavior. In the last decade there have been many papers published showing how genetics plays a role in grandparenting--particularly grandmothers, including a theory that menopause exists to turn mothers into grandmothers, which would have been a significant benefit in hunter-gatherer societies.

It was absolutely incredible to see my two poodles know how to take care of their puppies immediately after they were born without any kind of training whatsoever. It would be very odd if we were not likewise genetically encoded with behaviors and desires that benefit the continuation of our genes, which would involve both our children and our grandchildren.

Yes, of course and the studies goes back and forth, pro and con, but this kind of science has nothing to do with explaining "why," which you claim you don't wish to know anyway. Maybe this exchange might be useful to you: Posted 10 hours ago & Posted 8 hours ago

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I've just entered the Twilight Zone then. I could have sworn you are in Mexico and were once attending an LDS ward but not a member with your wife but then you quit going to the ward because of how you were treated towards the end. You were posting quite often, not just a few times a year. You also are a historian who even speaks at conferences, LDS ones too, like the Mormon History ones. 

Have I gone bonkers?

You are thinking of Navidad (I see already answered 👍)

Edited May 7, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Analytics,

This came across my feed the other day. I was wondering what your thoughts were, about these recent findings by the James Webb Space Telescope? It looks like there have been several new peer reviewed papers on these recent findings. 

 

Dark matter - Wikipedia

Hi Peppermint Patty,

I looked at the wikipedia article you linked to, and here are my thoughts on it, especially in regards to this thread.

First, it’s important to keep in mind that Sean Carroll received his PhD in physics from Harvard, and subsequently has held research positions at the University of Chicago, Cal Tech, and John Hopkins. According to Google Scholar, his papers have been cited 33,453 times, including 10,458 citations in the last 5 years, including papers on dark matter and dark energy. On the wikipedia article you linked to, two of his academic papers are cited in the footnotes. According to Big Picture:

Quote

One as-yet-undiscovered particle we believe exists is dark matter. Astronomers, studying the motions of stars and galaxies as well as the large-scale structure of the universe, have become convinced that most matter is “dark”—some kind of new particle that is not part of the Core Theory. The dark-matter particle must be quite long-lived, or it would have decayed away long ago. But it cannot interact strongly with ordinary matter, or it would have already been found in one of the many dark-matter detection experiments that physicists are currently running. Whatever the dark matter is, it certainly plays no role in determining the weather here on Earth, or anything having to do with biology, consciousness, or human life.

Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 183). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Everything in the wikipedia article you linked to is consistent with what Carroll said in Big Picture. For example, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article says: "In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field.” It not interacting with these fields is what causes it to be “dark” and is why it “certainly” plays no role in biology, consciousness, or human life.

The article goes on to say: "Dark matter is not known to interact with ordinary baryonic matter and radiation except through gravity, making it difficult to detect in the laboratory.” It’s important to keep in mind how scientists are extraordinarily skilled at detecting incredibly subtle things in the lab. 

Reading the rest of the article and drilling down onto other pages about cold dark matter and axions are more of the same. The research is all quite interesting, and it all supports what Carroll says in Big Pictrue: “we’re not claiming that all the laws of physics are known, only a restricted set that suffices to describe what happens at the level underlying every day life...there are probably more particles yet to be found. They just won’t be relevant to our everyday world. The fact that we haven’t yet found such particles tells us a great deal about what properties they must have; that’s the power of quantum field theory...if any particle we haven’t yet found lasted long enough and interacted with ordinary matter with sufficient strength that it could possibly affect the physics of everyday goings-on, we would have produced it in experiments by now.” (182-183)

  

Edited May 7, 2024 by Analytics

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2024 at 6:53 AM, Calm said:

I don’t really see any problem with it for two reasons. (Just remember you asked for an explanation when you get tangled in the weeds  )
 

First since it is essentially the same as the same person reacting differently when older as they did when younger, the same person possesses a young mind and an older one that may be dramatically different based on experience, health, etc.  Having variable mental states over the years doesn’t mean there are two or more spirits associated with the one brain at different times, but rather different sets of reactions, etc from the same entity, each of which we could if we choose label a unique mind based on its unique history and attributes.  

The split brain creates two minds in space, two apparently functioning minds rather than two different minds in two different times.  If in eternity all time is before God, interacting ‘at once’ with what are different minds over time would seem to be pretty much the same thing as different minds in space and whatever resolves the first will probably resolve the second.

Second, probably an easier idea to get your head around, I can see the split brain is a problem if you equate spirit with mind, but if the spirit is veiled as we are taught in LDS doctrine, it can’t be equated to the mind or whatever one wants to call the consciousness or perhaps our sense of self, which certainly is not veiled since we are quite aware of it. 

If a person’s spirit is separate from the mind in mortality as I believe is at least implied in LDS doctrine if not explicit, then one could view it as having influence on the mind similar to how the body has influence on a person’s mind.

In the split brain situation, having independent halves does not also require two bodies, quite the opposite as one body provides sensations, input, influence to both minds. Why not therefore the possibility that one spirit is providing spiritual sensations, input, influence to the two minds as well? 

Theoretically, after all, if communication between the two halves of the brain could be restored, the person would have one mind again.  It would seem to be is the illusion of two entities, not the reality of it. 

Now if one wanted to experiment by taking one half of a brain and placing it in a new body, so two bodies each with half a brain…or worse switching out halves between two bodies including brains and connecting the different brain halves do each becomes a whole brain, thus creating two new brains out of the brains from two different people, that could get very interesting. I speculate the result would depend on how much of the mortal body is part of the eternal being.  It could really get messed up if the mortal body is the ‘real’ thing and not just a temporary shell, a puppet more or less for the spirit/intelligence to play with before receiving its actual physical body that perfectly expresses its eternal nature in the resurrection as I believe is most likely.

I know people have claimed to see dead people looking identical to their mortal bodies, but if they are spirits and not resurrected beings, why could these not just be images created by the eternal intelligence/spirit because mortal eyes are incapable of actually seeing the eternal being…and therefore these visions of the dead can look however is appropriate*** (also it seems unlikely anyone so recently dead as to be recognized by a living loved one has been resurrected yet due to what Joseph said about the length of time it would take after death and before resurrection for us to comprehend the endowment and the principles of exaltation, apparently a necessity before Judgment and resurrection).

My speculation is not any of the mortal puppet body is joined with the eternal intelligence/spirit entity based on how the body is first created and then destroyed after death.  My only real question is how much of the DNA blueprint will be retained.

Other questions that occur to me that would have impact on determining the significance of the split brain phenomenon…

Does the spirit link more with the rest of the body or does it only link with the body through the brain?  If the first, would the spirit remain whole rather than splitting itself as well and if so, would it stay with the body or the brain?  And in the second case, would a spirit/intelligence link with both halves of the original brain or would it cause the new second half to become part of the entity associated with the spirit/intelligence?

***The mother of my father in law saw her long dead husband shortly before she died and he was wearing some clothes that he was wearing when he died. Obviously he was not buried in them, being LDS.  The actual clothes were probably long disintegrated in a landfill, if not burned. It makes no sense that clothes get resurrected or that he would have been wearing the same outfit for 60 years waiting for his wife to see him just so it was easy for her to recognize him and be reassured he hadn’t forgotten her (she was terrified of death because she was afraid her husband wouldn’t know her as an old lady).

Well hmmm....ok.... if that works for you.  But it sure seems a convoluted way to make something that really has a simple answer to fit in your religious faith based beliefs.

[Analytics]

I had a couple of hours to kill this morning, so I decided to read @smac97’s epic post. When printed out, this one message on this thread was 13 pages long and contained 5,374 words.

I can’t respond to everything, and the truth is most of this rant doesn’t deserve a response. But I will make a couple of comments on what I found salient.

On 5/3/2024 at 3:42 PM, smac97 said:

See also here:

This link is funny. Steven Pinker is one of the world’s top scientists. As a sample of his achievements, he is a professor at Harvard. Elected to National Academy of Sciences.  Research awards from National Academy of Sciences, American Psychological Association, Royal Institution of Great Britain, Cognitive Neuroscience Society. On list of Foreign Policy magazine’s top 100 public thinkers. On list of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world.

Steven Pinker happens to think Sean Carroll’s arguments about this are convincing. He says: 

Though our ignorance is vast (and always will be), our knowledge is astonishing, and growing daily. The physicist Sean Carroll argues in The Big Picture that the laws of physics underlying everyday life (that is, excluding extreme values of energy and gravitation like black holes, dark matter, and the Big Bang) are completely known. It’s hard to disagree that this is “one of the greatest triumphs of human intellectual history.”

Pinker, Steven. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (p. 385). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Pinker also says:

Not surprisingly, the effects failed to replicate, but that was a foregone conclusion given the infinitesimal prior probability that a social psychologist had disproven the laws of physics by showing some undergraduates some porn. When I raised this point to a social psychologist colleague, he shot back, “Maybe Pinker doesn’t understand the laws of physics!” But actual physicists, like Sean Carroll in his book The Big Picture, have explained why the laws of physics really do rule out precognition and other forms of ESP.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (p. 160). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

One would think that Steven Pinker endorsing Carroll’s argument would mean we ought to take his argument seriously. But @smac97 doesn't do that. Instead, he quotes a guy who blogs about intelligent design, UFOs, and orbs.

To be clear, I’m not making an appeal to authority. Rather, I’m making an appeal to the specific arguments that Sean Carroll makes in his book, which are the arguments that smac97 refuses to engage with.

On 5/3/2024 at 3:42 PM, smac97 said:

Roger, one of the reasons I have a hard time taking your absolutist confidence seriously is that you have a track record of exhibiting unwarranted and unearned bravado, and in not being entirely accurate in your characterizations, and in never really walking back any of your overblown claims.

Okay, let’s hear it. 

On 5/3/2024 at 3:42 PM, smac97 said:

For example, back in 2021 you cited Carroll's theories as being "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla."  And that turned out . . . not well.

I presume that what you are referring to by “Carroll’s theories” is quantum field theory? The truth is that "Quantum field theory is an immensely powerful framework. If Godzilla and the Hulk had a baby, and that baby was a framework describing a certain kind of physical theory, that baby would be quantum field theory." (Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 178). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)

Quantum Field Theory isn’t Sean Carroll’s theory. It was developed by dozens of top-notch scientists over the course of about 50 years in the mid 20th century.

You ranted about how you disagree with Carroll about the implications of Quantum Field Theory, but it continues to be clear that you have no interest in understanding the actual arguments. Ironically, that was my original point in 2021--that apologists won’t engage with the strongest arguments against their religion. 

On 5/3/2024 at 3:42 PM, smac97 said:

In another instance, you declared, with supreme confidence, the following:

So your characterizations of Terryl Givens were pretty bold:

• "Givens's latest book ... is subversive ... {and} contains dozens of concessions of anti-Mormon claims that you'd find on a 'big list.'"
• "Givens thinks the end result is beautiful and expresses it all from a perspective of admiration in erudite language,"
• "if you have the patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying and compare it to what the church teaches in manuals and in conference, then one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud."
• "A beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless."
• "Listen to the podcast."

Your characterizations were also, as it turns out, pretty flagrantly wrong.  I responded:

Elsewhere I said this: "I just now went back and looked at the email I received from Bro. Givens.  Not only did he call your claim about him 'patently false,' he also said this: 'I dont believe any careful reader of the entire book could reasonably conclude such a thing.'"

You never disputed my statement above, nor did you ever challenge my quote from Bro. Givens.  So your various characterizations of him were, I think, demonstrably falsified, and yet you just shrugged it off.  You responded:

And "bow out" you did.  No retraction.  No revision.  No acknowledgment of rank and flagrant error on your part.  You just withdrew from the discussion and carried on.

First of all, a lot of what I said in the offending post was correct; The Pearl of Greatest Price really is subversive in the sense that Radio Free Mormon lays out. You haven’t demonstrated otherwise. There really are many discrepancies between the Church’s orthodox teachings and what Givens says in his scholarship. Having said that, whether or not this means it is “true” or is a “fraud” depends upon your definitions of those things, and how sophisticated you want to be about it, and your personal beliefs.

Does Givens think it is a “fraud”? He says he doesn’t and I accept his word on the matter. At the time, I thanked you for correcting me, and I now profusely apologize for stating that Givens thought it was a fraud. Given the tension between what apologists say and the Church’s orthodox teachings you can understand why I might be confused about such things. Or not. Your choice.

On 5/3/2024 at 3:42 PM, smac97 said:

In yet another instance, from just last year, you wildly mischaracterized the position of a large number of Latter-day Saints on this board (regarding what they understand is, and is not, "tithing"). 

That is false. From your link, I said "the definition of “tithing” is the wrong question. The real question is how did reasonable Saints, including Huntsman, interpret “I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used….”  

It’s amazing that you think I was wrong about this. In those old threads from 10 years ago, the MDB participants had a paradigm that is different than the one you now insist be used in the court cases. Back then, the question was not the definition of tithing. Back then, the majority of the MDB participants thought that using tithing money to generate investment income to build a mall is indirectly using tithing money to build a mall. Read the OP:

Quote

When people accuse the Church of using sacred tithing money to fund things like the building of the City Creek mall, the obvious answer is of course that tithing money is not used; rather money from the for-profit arm of the church is used that was obtained through business investments over the years.

But then of course critics ask the next question; "Where do you think the church got the money to buy the businesses in the first place?"

And they conclude that It must have started with tithing money donated by early church members. So in an indirect way the City Creek mall was made possible by sacred tithing money donated by members 150 years ago; money that is supposed to be dedicated to building God's church and helping the poor; not for building shopping malls. How does one respond to this?

The issue wasn’t the definition of tithing. The issue was whether using tithing money to generate investment income to build a mall was indirectly using tithing money to build a mall.

I think you are the one who has the real credibility issue here.

[Teancum]

On 5/5/2024 at 3:05 PM, mfbukowski said:

So if I watch that brain activity closely enough, it will give me the definition of "love"?

No. Humans give the definition of love.

On 5/5/2024 at 3:05 PM, mfbukowski said:

Wow!  Throw away all the songs, religions, literature,  feelings of what we say to those we love, what it is LIKE to fall in love, how feel about those we love and all connected to what the word "love" means culturally, and we can learn all that by getting out the good old microscope, chemistry set, and a lot of electronic stuff, and there it will be- a "representation" of the feeling the word expressed by the squiggles L-O-V-E?

Wow! I gotta get a ton of equipment and figure out how to use it, so that I can be a better poet, and write songs and become a billionaire!!??

I am not sure I get your point.

On 5/5/2024 at 3:05 PM, mfbukowski said:

Thanks!

But where do I get somebody's brain?  Can you volunteer- I mean it's your idea right? 

But wait a minute there.  How do I make sure it "represents"  LOVE accurately?   

How do I compare the feeling of LOVE with all that machine data?   I mean if it REPRESENTS the feeling, how can we check that out?   I mean I guess I have to look at my scientific data, and then look at LOVE and see that they both look alike?

But how do I SEE love to compare it to the data?

It's that good old correspondence theory problem all over again.   But I want to find TRUTH!   So how does this represent TRUTH about LOVE?

Where can I find a bucket or two of TRUTH so  I can compare it  with the brain data of LOVE?   Will they at least be the same color?   I would guess that color would have to be RED with all the blood and stuff, right?    Wow that is exciting to know!

Yes and what is your point please?