Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
If a materialist account cannot distinguish between things like pleasure and joy then it definitely cannot explain what causes them. When materialists say they are explaining something, they often are simply explaining it away. Moreover, pleasure and joy, in the sense that they are distinct human experiences, are no more available to science (in the proper use of that term) than God; the "intervention issue" again is only problematic inasmuch as it assumes that God must be materially available in order to exist (e.g., the woeful misunderstanding of prayer as magical wish-granting ITT). The subjectivity of human experience does not discount its reality, however.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's worth keeping in mind that science doesn't ever make a claim to fully understand anything.

Nor can it make any claim to account for everything that is real.

I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you mean by materialist. Pleasure and joy are experienced sensations, which means we can study them and what causes them. Even if that's not a state of the brain, it's something we can make observations about and thus study.

I agree that science can't necessarily account for everything that's real. Maybe it can - but we can't ever know if there are things that exist that we just can't perceive. We'll never know, since you can't prove something doesn't exist.

If you mean to say there are things that are real and that we can perceive but that can't be studied scientifically, I don't really know what to say.

As far as the homework goes, I don't really see the harm in someone looking up to a theoretical perfect being and striving to be more like them. Kids should be exposed to different religions anyway.

HFP, I think you're eliding the sensation of joy with the reality of joy and that this sensation is ultimately collapsable into the materialist rhetoric of brain chemistry. This tendency shows up in your turn of phrase conflating "things that are real and that we can perceive." Do you mean perception in the material sense (the Five Senses)?

 Manchu wrote:
If a materialist account cannot distinguish between things like pleasure and joy then it definitely cannot explain what causes them.

Im not sure where you are getting that science cant tell us these things. You even gave one of the chemicals which is involved in your original post in this particular line of discussion.

Again, im not a specialist in brain chemistry but there are a lot of things we understand about what and how the brain experiences and how that translates into what t"we" experience. fMRI allows us to visualise brain activity, as do several other imaging modalities. They can show us the uptake and use of different chemicals in different parts of the brain under different stimulus.

If nothing else, joy and pleasure form part of a spectrum of emotion that we can observe and describe scientifically even with nothing more than asking people questions.

There may be a spectrum of how much of certain chemicals is present in some portion of the brain but that spectrum does not describe what is meant by the words joy and pleasure.

 Manchu wrote:
If a materialist account cannot distinguish between things like pleasure and joy then it definitely cannot explain what causes them. When materialists say they are explaining something, they often are simply explaining it away. Moreover, pleasure and joy, in the sense that they are distinct human experiences, are no more available to science (in the proper use of that term) than God; the "intervention issue" again is only problematic inasmuch as it assumes that God must be materially available in order to exist (e.g., the woeful misunderstanding of prayer as magical wish-granting ITT). The subjectivity of human experience does not discount its reality, however.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's worth keeping in mind that science doesn't ever make a claim to fully understand anything.

Nor can it make any claim to account for everything that is real.

Biochemical reactions in the brain in response to external stimuli causes pleasure and joy. It's really all a grand symphony of atoms and electrons that produce all of our range of emotions.

Science indeed cannot prove god exists or doesn't since god is unfalsifiable claim. "God is an all knowing and all powerful being that exists outside of nature" is difficult if not impossible to disprove since we can only study what -is- in nature. So... he well and truly can exist according to our current model of the universe. However, there are also many other religions out there and their claims are mostly just as valid as the Christian one by my reasoning. It's like in that one scene in South Park where a group of people enter hell and are informed that Mormonism is the actual religion of the universe. It's a big crap shoot if you think about it.

More on topic I think people overreacted to the situation but I also think the teacher should've accepted the project. Though having god as a role model is questionable...

 Manchu wrote:
There may be a spectrum of how much of certain chemicals is present in some portion of the brain but that spectrum does not describe what is meant by the words joy and pleasure.

Subjective interpretations of physiological changes can still be described by science in the same way you wpuld describe the feelings of jpy and pleasure. I would assume you would start by deciding what constitutes joy and what constitutes pleasure and then what makes each distinct from one another? Congratulatuons - you have just used aimple scientific method to characterise a 'non material' thing.

If you mean that science cannt explain the words used... not really sure that is a valid comment. The words are labels which are applied to a generally agreed upon set of sensations. If you agree on a definition for those words you can explain them. If those words relate to something which can be observed physically or inferred from other observations then you can descrube it scientifically.

No, joy is not as simple as pleasure "+ X."

 Manchu wrote:
No, joy is not as simple as pleasure "+ X."

So define the two terms for us.

 Manchu wrote:
No, joy is not as simple as pleasure "+ X."

Are you arguing for the existence of qualia?

 Manchu wrote:
HFP, I think you're eliding the sensation of joy with the reality of joy and that this sensation is ultimately collapsable into the materialist rhetoric of brain chemistry. This tendency shows up in your turn of phrase conflating "things that are real and that we can perceive." Do you mean perception in the material sense (the Five Senses)?

I wouldn't break it down to five, because that would exclude certain things (like emotion). Emotion is a thing that exists. We can "feel" an emotion. That feeling can, therefore, be studied.

I am not sure what you mean about sensation of joy vs reality of joy. Do you mean the lived experience vs (for example) the brain chemistry state that informs joy?

My view:

(1) Do you think god exists?
If yes, go to (2)
If no, go to (4)

(2) Do you think your god intervene in the universe according to your prayers or actions?
If yes go to (3)
If no, go to (4)

(3) Do you think your god wants/requires your prayers and belief?
If yes, go to (5)
If no, go to (4)

(4) There is no point in worshipping god, because s/he doesn't exist, doesn't listen, or doesn't care

(5) Why are you worshipping a god who wants obedience rather than self-reliance? I don't want to believe in a god like that...

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
HFP, I think you're eliding the sensation of joy with the reality of joy and that this sensation is ultimately collapsable into the materialist rhetoric of brain chemistry. This tendency shows up in your turn of phrase conflating "things that are real and that we can perceive." Do you mean perception in the material sense (the Five Senses)?

I wouldn't break it down to five, because that would exclude certain things (like emotion). Emotion is a thing that exists. We can "feel" an emotion. That feeling can, therefore, be studied.

I am not sure what you mean about sensation of joy vs reality of joy. Do you mean the lived experience vs (for example) the brain chemistry state that informs joy?

Emotions aren't sensitivity, tho. That's an illusion caused by our specific language. Emotions are reaction cues that direct us toward a certain set of behaviours. One thing that might add to the problem is that emotions in turns cause sensations. Jealousy provokes a sickening feeling in the guts, but it cannot be reduced to that feeling alone. Jealousy is also, and more importantly, a response of the mind,that of aggresively wanting what others have, confronted with a specific situation, that of lacking what we strongly desire and seeing others having it. In this case, jealousy is a continuous process that is founded in the perception of a state-of-affairs, continues in a cognitive process, and causes lateraly a physical cue (a specific gastroceptive feeling).

And there's a lot more than 5 senses.

Visual : Sight, electroception & magnetoception
Mechanical : Touch, audition, echolocation, proprioception, toniception, thermoception & nociception
Chemical : Taste, hunger & smell.

And a few more I don't remember.