Love

[JetPlane]

Is it just chemicals in your brain, or something more?

[Lektrogirl]

I'm discussing this very same topic with a friend of mine right now.

Well, I would like to say that I believe that it is more than just chemistry, but the logic in that agrument seems to me to be pretty solid. That's her side of the discussion, the chemistry that is love.

I will say that I am not totally convinced that it's chemisty alone, but if I get into my other beliefs about it it's only going to open a crapload of other stuff.

[Cazmonster]

I'd venture to say it's chemistry, because Diana Ross Love Hangover just came on my CD.

[Szechuan]

Maybe just a bunch of chemicals in your brain. But what stimulates them in the first place? I don't fall in love with every female I see or know. Love is both.

[Bethyaga]

Is it just chemicals in your brain, or something more?

Love is a firing of neurons in the brain.

Love is an evolved social response to help ensure survival of your genes.

Love is a meme.

Love is the way your brain interprets certain chemical/hormonal responses in the appropriate context.

Love is a lot of other technical junk that I can't think of right now.

Is it just chemicals in your brain, or something more?

I don't care. Love is real. I know how it feels to me. I like it. I could not live without it.

[Lektrogirl]

Also, if love was just a chemical process or reaction would that also mean that everything you do (such as the choices you make) would be justa chemical process or reaction? So you could never really have free-will since all of your decisions would be predetermined based on your body's chemistry alone, right?

[Eliahad]

Makes you kind of feel small and incontinent doesn't it? Of course, I always feel incontinent...I am using the right word here...right?

[3278]

Also, if love was just a chemical process or reaction would that also mean that everything you do (such as the choices you make) would be justa chemical process or reaction? So you could never really have free-will since all of your decisions would be predetermined based on your body's chemistry alone, right?

Correct. This is, of course, true of everything you do. Have a nice day.

[Cazmonster]

Yes, people are compositions of chemicals and when it comes down to it, your brain is just a big three-dee computer that uses chemical electrical signals.

But, your brain, my brain, heck, just about everybody's brain (except 3278's cause he had his swapped out for a tricked out processor from a Sony Vaio) is one of the few computers we know about that can reprogram itself...

[Crazy Elf]

Exactaly, and seeing that the reprograming tends to occur on a daily/hourly/by the second rate, you tend to have a lot more, "Free will", than you give yourself credit for. If you want to get hyper sensitive about the nature of reality, then yes, you're going to come up with warped reasoning for your existence. The end result, however, is that you can't predict everything that you're going to do tomorrow.

And that's kind of the point.

[3278]

Exactaly, and seeing that the reprograming tends to occur on a daily/hourly/by the second rate, you tend to have a lot more, "Free will", than you give yourself credit for.

Well, no. You /feel/ like you do. You have more /apparent/ free will, because...

The end result, however, is that you can't predict everything that you're going to do tomorrow.

And that's why it looks like you have free will: because the system is too complex to predict.

[Spiral]

Correct. This is, of course, true of everything you do. Have a nice day.

32, I think I love you.

[Lightfinger]

Wuv! Twue Wuv!

- priest in Princess Bride

[Jestyr]

So you could never really have free-will since all of your decisions would be predetermined based on your body's chemistry alone, right?

Except that you could easily posit that there are some elements of randomness left in the universe, and interactions on the atomic scale have to be a contender there. I think this is where the physics experts should weigh in.

[The Eclipse]

I'm taking a psychology class this semester and we are studying the physiological aspects of thought.

Does anyone else have trouble with this?
I have a tough time with thinking of conciousness as being nothing more than the firings of neurons, it's such a mindfuck even for me to think too much about it.

[Serious Paul]

Its never worth the pain that you feel.

I love that song.

[DV8]

Although I do believe that love is nothing more than chemicals, I really don't think that defining and simplifying something that is supposed to be mystical is the right thing to do.

[Jestyr]

love is nothing more than chemicals

...which makes it sound so little and small.

I mean, /everything/ is really nothing more than chemicals. The sum of who we are, is nothing more than chemicals.

[3278]

So you could never really have free-will since all of your decisions would be predetermined based on your body's chemistry alone, right?

Except that you could easily posit that there are some elements of randomness left in the universe, and interactions on the atomic scale have to be a contender there. I think this is where the physics experts should weigh in.

Hi.

No. There are not, to our knowledge, any elements of randomness in the universe. What there /are/ are some elements that we cannot predict, either because the system is too complex to gather all of the information necessary, or because of Wiener von Heisenberg and his stupid Uncertainty. [He's right; I just don't like it. ]

[TheScamp]

Yeah. What a wiener.

[Coyote]

Love
Love will tear us apart
Again

[Crazy Elf]

There are not, to our knowledge, any elements of randomness in the universe

That's a pile of horse shit, and you know it. If we could measure the universe down to the smallest scale, then you could probably say, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was no randomness and everything was acounted for. However, there's a whole bunch of things out there that state otherwise. Hell, we don't even know what the universe is made up of all in all. Used to be atoms, then it was protons, neutrons and electrons, then it was quarks, now it's tiny vibrating strings and membranes living in a space of 10 or 11 dimensions.

And you say, "There's nothing random", when you don't een know what it is that isn't random in the first place, or if you can even attribute it to that. Particle physics keeps saying, "Huh?" and buckets of people out there live random lives everyday, that work out because of back up plans and fallback devices. We're complex (to the point of being stupidly simple) but we're not planned. Chemicals aren't the be all and end all of what it means to live, no matter how comfortable fate makes you feel.

Your actions are your responsability.

[DV8]

Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's random.

[3278]

There are not, to our knowledge, any elements of randomness in the universe

That's a pile of horse shit, and you know it.

No. Not really. It's true. Sorry.

If we could measure the universe down to the smallest scale, then you could probably say, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was no randomness and everything was acounted for.

Well, that /is/ why I said, "to our knowledge." But there are no indications, in my opinion, that the universe operates on anything other than cause -> effect.

However, there's a whole bunch of things out there that state otherwise.

Like, say, what?

Hell, we don't even know what the universe is made up of all in all. Used to be atoms, then it was protons, neutrons and electrons, then it was quarks, now it's tiny vibrating strings and membranes living in a space of 10 or 11 dimensions.

Well, that's true. Immaterial, but true. I think I see where you're going with this, though; we could learn tomorrow that there's some other way of putting the universe together that would imply that it's all random at its core. And that's happened before; remember "Chaos Theory?" Except that we eventually proved that even that isn't random.

Every time we find out something's random, we find out later that it wasn't really random at all; we were just ignorant.

We're complex (to the point of being stupidly simple) but we're not planned. Chemicals aren't the be all and end all of what it means to live, no matter how comfortable fate makes you feel.

Ah, really? So tell me, what else, besides chemicals, are we? What makes us work besides biochemical engines and neurochemistry?

[Crazy Elf]

Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's random

Doesn't mean it isn't, either.

Like, say, what?

Entangled particles, sounds that shooting stars make on the ground at the same time as they streak across the sky, quantum criticality, Steve Hubbell's theory on biodiversity, which revolves around random factors, if you believe what is said about the Cold Fusion tests, then Cold Fusion is random also, as it happened once, and never again since.

There's a lot of random stuff out there. You can say it's lack of understanding, but you can't prove that. If you think that the world is all cause and effect, it's just opinion, not fact, just like it isn't fact that "There are not, to our knowledge, any elements of randomness in the universe", because to our knowledge there are buckets of them.

Every time we find out something's random, we find out later that it wasn't really random at all; we were just ignorant.

And it's just as ignorant to say that randomness isn't an option.

What makes us work besides biochemical engines and neurochemistry?

You want to get spiritual with me? No one wins that debate. If you say it is or isn't there, then it's a matter of opinion against workings. I can say I've seen things that you sure as hell couldn't explain, and you could say that you could if you saw them, or that I'm crazy, or that it's mass hysteria, or whatever.

Can't proove anything in either court. It's just a popularity contest for opinions. Monkey that.

[Jestyr]

Ultimately, if the universe is infinite, then to describe it totally accurately, the description would also be infinite. And you can't have two infinite entities co-existing.

Or did I slip something spurious in there?

[Bishop]

God, not this discussion again. Last time this came up, Me, 32, and a friend of ours discussed it for 5 hours. On bulldrek, that could take months. *shakes head* Pshyics....geesh.

[3278]

Like, say, what?

Entangled particles, sounds that shooting stars make on the ground at the same time as they streak across the sky, quantum criticality, Steve Hubbell's theory on biodiversity, which revolves around random factors, if you believe what is said about the Cold Fusion tests, then Cold Fusion is random also, as it happened once, and never again since.

There's absolutely nothing random about Passion at a Distance, and I don't know what makes you think there is. I have no idea what you're talking about with the shooting stars thing. Quantum Criticality remains something in which there is a great deal of unpredictability involved - because of Schrodinger and his cat - but no indications of randomness. Biodiversity is a case of Complex Systems, not randomness, and I think we're all pretty much convinced Cold Fusion is crap.

There's a lot of random stuff out there. You can say it's lack of understanding, but you can't prove that. If you think that the world is all cause and effect, it's just opinion, not fact, just like it isn't fact that "There are not, to our knowledge, any elements of randomness in the universe", because to our knowledge there are buckets of them.

To our knowledge, nothing is random. While it is true that we have, in the past, found things that looked random, we have /always/ discovered that they're not. Yes, it is possible that we may eventually find some underlying randomness to the universe, but that would completely alter /everything/ we know to be true about the universe, which isn't terribly likely at this point.

Randomness doesn't make sense. Everything we've ever witnessed has a cause. We may not be able to predict it, but to assume that our ignorance equals randomness is egotism on the scale of the Chaos Theory.

Every time we find out something's random, we find out later that it wasn't really random at all; we were just ignorant.

And it's just as ignorant to say that randomness isn't an option.

Oh, it's an option. It's just the least likely of the two, by a long stretch.

What makes us work besides biochemical engines and neurochemistry?

You want to get spiritual with me? No one wins that debate. If you say it is or isn't there, then it's a matter of opinion against workings. I can say I've seen things that you sure as hell couldn't explain, and you could say that you could if you saw them, or that I'm crazy, or that it's mass hysteria, or whatever.

I don't think you could possibly have seen things I couldn't explain. And I don't think you could possibly make a case that, if I couldn't explain something, that means that human beings are spiritual creatures. That seems like an A > B > Jelly Sandwich kind of reasoning, if you get my drift.

But, yeah, I'll get all spiritual with you. You can't prove that human beings are anything more than chemicals. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something, to steal a phrase.

Can't proove anything in either court. It's just a popularity contest for opinions. Monkey that.

Yeah, you'd think so, but that doesn't make it so. Simply because two people hold opinions doesn't mean one of them isn't totally wrong, and I'm pretty tired of hearing that it does.

[Bishop]

Hey now, I liked Chaos Theory. For a second or two, at least.

[Crazy Elf]

unpredictability involved - because of Schrodinger and his cat - but no indications of randomness

Oh, so it's not random if it's unpredictable, because Schrodnger said so. Some dickhead doesn't like cats and suddenly the whole world is a system?

Unpredictability is randomness, period.

Biodiversity is a case of Complex Systems

And Mr Hubbell said that it was random, basically, and luck of the draw. His theory stands pretty firm, too.

We may not be able to predict it, but to assume that our ignorance equals randomness is egotism on the scale of the Chaos Theory.

Same goes for assuming that it all adds up to some equation.

I don't think you could possibly have seen things I couldn't explain

Lay healing. Remote viewing. Telikinesis.

Simply because two people hold opinions doesn't mean one of them isn't totally wrong, and I'm pretty tired of hearing that it does.

Ever thought that you're the one who's totally wrong? Or has that highly probable alternative escaped you? Of course you're tired of hearing that neither opinion is totally wrong, because you're completely unwilling to abandon your own stance, no matter how many holes you have to stand on.

That's why this conversation is going to go nowhere. I'll say something, you'll say, "Bullshit" and that's all you'll say. Your back up will be, "You're crazy", when most of the tests that we've taken recently mean that I'm rather sane in comparison to you

Where do you really think this is going to get us?

[Anaka]

To take another tack on what Crazy Elf is saying...

Who is to say that the electrochemical processes associated with love/sex/lust/insert-emotion-or-bodily-function-here are the cause instead of the effect? In other words, yeah, we're all chemicals and electrical impulses. Thus, anything we experience must have an expression in that elemental language of building blocks, since we're all made up of that sort of stuff. And my answer to that is, what's your point?

Humanity typically starts with a result and attempts to trace it back to find its origins, method of development, and cause. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this, as we usually don't have a lot of choice. But that type of methodology also has a tendency to cause us as a whole to look at the end result and think that's all there is. In reality, we just don't know what else there is yet because the Great Poker Player of the Cosmos hasn't shown us all the cards She started the hand with.

We also have a tendency, especially in modern Western culture, to view every entity as distinct and unconnected with the world around it: a view that often ends up making us work twice as hard to achieve what we want as if we'd just viewed something as a whole in the first place.

Now granted, it's often hard to see all the parts when you don't even know some of them are there--a condition we wander around in most of the time. But I think it plays a bearing on this discussion in that, yes, love has a chemical expression. Someday, someone is undoubtedly going to discover the exact chemical formula of love, bottle it, and we'll all be happily twitterpated all the time. But that doesn't mean that's all there is to the emotion, or that we should necessarily be content with the definition handed down by the bio-chemists.

In short (too late), nothing about being human and existing and the world in general is as simple as chemistry suggests. To suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, selling the entire universe short for the convience of a pat answer.

[Kunan]

Of course the human brain is just a bunch of chemicals, energies, and whatever else is necessary to compose the world as we know it.

The real question here should be what governs the chemical reactions in our brains.

The argument that we have no free will, merely an illusion produced by our lack of understanding of the chemicals in our heads is something I find a bit lacking.

Let us compare our brains to the common computer: the computer is, of course, a bunch of chemicals, albeit organized in a manner not commonly found outside man's spheres of influence. However, the chemical and electrical action taking place in one of these magic boxes is not just what one would expect from collecting the involved raw materials and assembling them, even in a similar manner. This is because of minor details in the structure of the materials (commonly referred to as "software") that, while unimportant to anything that is likely to happen to the computer if you set it outside in the middle of Death Valley for a year, dictate various actions that are to be taken during normal use.

The point of my rambling is that the human brain operates more often according to the actions dictated by our software, rather than the actions one would expect to occur when mixing together the chemicals present in our wetware. And that because of our ability to modify minor parts of the software and the many variables it deals with, we do have more free will than lab chemicals. The operation of the software is not completely dictated by the wetware; rather, the operation of both has the capability to influence the other.

This brings me to my next point: In the several months since I last actually posted to bulldrekk, I have discovered something that has quite a bit of relevance to this discussion; specifically, that the exterior of the wetware shell contains a "soft spot" towards the lower extremities, and that this "soft spot" can be depressed through the use of various common household items, (mechanical pencils work well) resulting in a reset of the software to some amalgamation of it's current and original states; the subject thus reset will maintain much of the basic skill information while purging most other data. (It will take a few hours of operation before such software is reintegrated into the operating system.) However, there is a minor undocumented side effect to attempting this procedure: The software will enter a "locked" mode, wherein no operation that is unnecessary for life support will be carried out. In order to return to normal operation, the subject must be lifted by the heels completely into the air and given a vigorous shaking.

[Spiral]

The point of my rambling is that the human brain operates more often according to the actions dictated by our software, rather than the actions one would expect to occur when mixing together the chemicals present in our wetware.

Oh? You're sure of that? I would think that because we interpret our perceptions according to the software running overtop of the hardware, we would be blind to some of the subtler effects the hardware creates.

[Crazy Elf]

This brings me to my next point: In the several months since I last actually posted to bulldrekk, I have discovered something that has quite a bit of relevance to this discussion; specifically, that the exterior of the wetware shell contains a "soft spot" towards the lower extremities, and that this "soft spot" can be depressed through the use of various common household items, (mechanical pencils work well) resulting in a reset of the software to some amalgamation of it's current and original states; the subject thus reset will maintain much of the basic skill information while purging most other data. (It will take a few hours of operation before such software is reintegrated into the operating system.) However, there is a minor undocumented side effect to attempting this procedure: The software will enter a "locked" mode, wherein no operation that is unnecessary for life support will be carried out. In order to return to normal operation, the subject must be lifted by the heels completely into the air and given a vigorous shaking.

Huh?

[Spiral]

I think he stuck a pencil up his ass.

[3278]

unpredictability involved - because of Schrodinger and his cat - but no indications of randomness

Oh, so it's not random if it's unpredictable, because Schrodnger said so. Some dickhead doesn't like cats and suddenly the whole world is a system?

Wow. That's a little out there, Elf.

Schrodinger didn't say anything about randomness. Frankly, if pressed, he'd likely have agreed with you - but only in a quantum sense. [Okay, quantum humor. Shoot me.]

Unpredictability is randomness, period.

My mom doesn't know how my car works. At all. She has no idea what'll happen if you push the pedal down to the floor. She just doesn't possess that knowledge. Now, she can guess, based on what she /has/ observed, that there's going to be smoke and lights and noises. But she doesn't /know./ Does this mean the behavior of my gas pedal is random?

Biodiversity is a case of Complex Systems

And Mr Hubbell said that it was random, basically, and luck of the draw. His theory stands pretty firm, too.

To be perfectly honest, I know nothing about Hubble's theory on biodiversity. Frankly, I didn't know he /had/ one. So why don't you take this opportunity to explain to me what his theory is, and how it implies randomness.

I don't think you could possibly have seen things I couldn't explain

Lay healing. Remote viewing. Telikinesis.

Yep. I don't think you could have possibly seen that.

Simply because two people hold opinions doesn't mean one of them isn't totally wrong, and I'm pretty tired of hearing that it does.

Ever thought that you're the one who's totally wrong? Or has that highly probable alternative escaped you? Of course you're tired of hearing that neither opinion is totally wrong, because you're completely unwilling to abandon your own stance, no matter how many holes you have to stand on.

Elf, I assure you that I am constantly reminded of the possibility of my own incorrectness by people who disagree with me about things. Besides which, I am regularly reminding myself of that possibility. Now, I know it looks like I don't consider it, but that's because I'm an arrogant dickweed. It has nothing to do with my actual frame of mind.

If I have so many holes to stand on, and if I'm so wrong, it shouldn't be hard to show me how wrong I am.

That's why this conversation is going to go nowhere. I'll say something, you'll say, "Bullshit" and that's all you'll say.

I'm sorry, what? Elf, I think we're pretty much backward, there.

[Crazy Elf]

[Okay, quantum humor. Shoot me.]

BANG
:plode

Does this mean the behavior of my gas pedal is random?

No it means your mom's an idiot.

Yo momma!

In any case, there's a difference between, "Gas pedal? Me no know " to, "The behaviour of this particle is completely erratic without pattern." Hell, even a direct 50% 50% break in something is *gasp* completely random! It can go either way, can't be predicted, it's random, not a direct system.

To be perfectly honest, I know nothing about Hubble's theory on biodiversity. Frankly, I didn't know he /had/ one. So why don't you take this opportunity to explain to me what his theory is, and how it implies randomness.

Okay, but I get to do it in gheto speak.

So this Steve bitch is like all, "Yo wassup", and then all these nerdy bitches are like, "Yo dogg, yall be pimpin shit in our biodiversity crib, yall" and he's all like, "Sup, nigga, I just don't get yall this system shit, yall, it's all like bogus and shit, you know what I'm sayin?" and they's all like, "Bitch, I pimp yo mac daddy arse yall" and he's like, "Yo, respect, a'iat? I got this bitch arse nigga biodiversity theory, yall, and it's like narlie" and they're all like, "No way, bitch, yo all been tokin' the weed yall" and he's like, "Nah, bitch, I been doin some brainin' and it's all like yo, these trees an shit ain't all doin it from the seeds and shit, they're like just growing, yall. Ain't no pimpin genetics to it, ain't no surviving in the gheto stylin, it's just all like keeping it real and growing where it's at, you know what I'm sayin'?"

So they're all like, "Woooah, you have been tokin' the shit", and he's like, "No way, I'm just chillin and brainin', yall, you best be givin' me the total respect, yall."

Then there was a driveby.

BANG
:plode

If I have so many holes to stand on, and if I'm so wrong, it shouldn't be hard to show me how wrong I am.

Your entire "Spirituality doesn't exist because it makes me uncomfortable" stance is full of holes, yes. Easy to show you, as you say, "It's wrong because I don't get it!" all the time. Just doesn't seem to click over for you, hence I'm not going to bother.

I'm sorry, what? Elf, I think we're pretty much backward, there.

Oh really? Then you won't mind explaining this:

Yep. I don't think you could have possibly seen that

That's pretty much exactally what I was saying. Granted, you didn't say bullshit, you spelt it differently.

[Nightsky]

I believe that Love is jsut chemical reactions and hormone release in the brain. However, what trigger's that response is something completely different.

[3278]

Does this mean the behavior of my gas pedal is random?

In any case, there's a difference between, "Gas pedal? Me no know " to, "The behaviour of this particle is completely erratic without pattern." Hell, even a direct 50% 50% break in something is *gasp* completely random! It can go either way, can't be predicted, it's random, not a direct system.

Okay, see, he's the problem. It's not. A 50/50 split /isn't/ random. When you flip a coin, it's not random at /all./ It appears random, because you don't know everything about the system - air movement, pressure, force, position, etc. - but it isn't; it is influenced by factors that are real and non-random, and produces non-random results. You just don't know what the results will be, because the system is too complex to gather all of the information about.

This isn't just me talking, CE. This is Lorenz and Yorke and May and Mandelbrot.

By the way, I'd like to say that comments like, "In any case, there's a difference between, 'Gas pedal? Me no know ' to, 'The behaviour of this particle is completely erratic without pattern.'" contribute more to the uselessness of a discussion like this than any sort of philosphical differences. No one was attempting to say that there /wasn't/ a difference between personal ignorance and particle randomness.

To be perfectly honest, I know nothing about Hubble's theory on biodiversity. Frankly, I didn't know he /had/ one. So why don't you take this opportunity to explain to me what his theory is, and how it implies randomness.

Okay, but I get to do it in gheto speak.

[Content cut for idiocy.]

Okay, so what you're saying is, not only don't you know what your point was, but your point wasn't even worth taking seriously. And that you know nothing about Hubble's theory of biodiversity. That's fine.

If I have so many holes to stand on, and if I'm so wrong, it shouldn't be hard to show me how wrong I am.

Your entire "Spirituality doesn't exist because it makes me uncomfortable" stance is full of holes, yes. Easy to show you, as you say, "It's wrong because I don't get it!" all the time. Just doesn't seem to click over for you, hence I'm not going to bother.

Ri-ight. Elf, if you can show me one place where I said spirituality was wrong because I don't get it, I'll drop the issue. But I think that it's fairly obvious that I know more about spirituality than you do about physics.

Spirituality doesn't make me uncomfortable, dorkis. I was a Christian for far more of my life than I've been an atheist, and I believed in all sorts of spiritual things up until a few years ago. My comfort has nothing to do with it. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable in a world where I have at least some chance of being able to throw a fireball than I am in the real world, where I don't.

Get a real argument; you're not going to score just by disagreeing.

I'm sorry, what? Elf, I think we're pretty much backward, there.

Oh really? Then you won't mind explaining this:

Yep. I don't think you could have possibly seen that

That's pretty much exactally what I was saying. Granted, you didn't say bullshit, you spelt it differently.

Nope, you're right, and I'm sorry. I blew you off, there, and I apologize. You stepped up to the plate and I greeted you with a punchline, and anyone willing to step up and discuss the issues deserves better.

So let's back up. You're saying people are "more than chemicals" because you have seen people do things that cannot be thus explained. I asked for examples, and you gave the following this you'd seen that I should not be able to explain:

Lay healing. Remote viewing. Telikinesis.

Okay, and you want me to provide explanations for those things. Simple.

Placebo, power of suggestion, and people with a too-rich fantasy life.

Come on. You didn't expect me to say anything different, did you? You've just said to me, "I've witnessed human capacities that are completely undocumented, that would change the face of the world as we know it," but all you can provide is 5 words?

If you want me to take spirituality of this sort seriously, you need to provide more. Information, facts, documentation. How can I refute what you haven't even put on the table?

I'll tell you a story that'll illustrate my viewpoint on mystical matters, as if you couldn't guess what that was.

I was in a coffee-shop one day, in which I effectively lived since I was homeless at the time, and I was talking to a nice girl I'd met there. We were talking about this and that, and she mentioned very casually that she was a witch, and that she had magical powers. I asked her if she could light my cigarette. She produced a lighter. I said, no, can you light the cigarette with your magical powers. She said no, that her magic didn't work like that. I said, well, okay, then can you float? In air. She said that no, she couldn't. I asked her what she could do, if she couldn't float or light cigarettes with her magical powers. She said that she could put a curse on me. Aha! I said. Now we're getting somewhere. And what will be the effects of this curse, I asked. She said that I'd have bad luck. I said, no, I mean, exactly what bad things will befall me if she put a curse on me. She said that it didn't work like that; I would just have bad luck. I asked her if she actually expected me to take seriously anything that couldn't at all be proven or reasoned with logical faculties. She told me I was a jerk.

[Jestyr]

[And, of course, if she was a witch like Granny Weatherwax, lighting your cigarette with the lighter really /would/ have been magic. ]

Incidentally, I'm waiting for a followup on Hubbell/Hubble's Theory of Biodiversity. My dad's an ecologist, so it's his kinda thing; I've fired off an email to him.

Incidentally, does anyone else find it so very Bulldrek, to begin by talking about love and end up on particle physics?

[JetPlane]

A person whom I know in real life, when asked this question, replied that love was energy.

Which, I think is an interesting concept, but I'd like it debated.

He said that love is energy, and as it is stated, it can be neither created nor destroyed, so instead, it "flows" from person-to-person. Which, actually, would be a semi-good reason for why people "rebound" after a break-up.

Their "love" energy level needs to be passed to someone else, so it does, even though the love for that person is false, the emotion or energy is not.

Also explains how, after a bad breakup, you may look for your x-lover's traits in other people, and when you find a similar match, you attach yourself to that person, and even become angry, later on, after you realize that they aren't like the original person at all.

Could also explain why people may look for completely different traits than their x-lover had. Your "energy" could be leading you to "try something different", simply because it didn't work out with that other type before. And why you may become angry with that person when you notice traits they have similar to your x.


I like the simplicity of his idea, but again, I leave it as an open-ended statement. Tear it apart or support it as you will. I'd like to see if his idea can hold true.

[3278]

I would agree that the concept is true on a metaphorical level, but not on a literal one.

[Crazy Elf]

Okay, so what you're saying is, not only don't you know what your point was, but your point wasn't even worth taking seriously. And that you know nothing about Hubble's theory of biodiversity. That's fine.

Okay, I have a show to go to, so I will reply to the rest of the points later. However, the Hubbell theory I actually do know about, and strangely enough I explained it. Basically, he says that biodiversity has nothing to do with the properties of the tree, or plant, but rather how lucky they were to grow in the first place. He did come up with a system to demonstrate this, however, it was based around luck more than anything else at the base line. Now you can say that luck isn't really luck, and it's just following through with a system and plan, in which case, you're saying that there's a God. If there's a God, then if you trace it back far enough eventually he needs a damn reson for doing things, which will probably be random. Even if you go back to the big bang, a sudden explosion, although easy to document after the fact, isn't exactally something that could have been planned considering the instantanious nature of the event.

Random. Random with a whole lot of numbers around it, but in essence, random.

[3278]

I look forward to the remainder of your explanation. I think.

[Bishop]

You sure about that?

[Eliahad]

The Elf's explanations are always a good time.

[3278]

Okay, so what you're saying is, not only don't you know what your point was, but your point wasn't even worth taking seriously. And that you know nothing about Hubble's theory of biodiversity. That's fine.

However, the Hubbell theory I actually do know about, and strangely enough I explained it. Basically, he says that biodiversity has nothing to do with the properties of the tree, or plant, but rather how lucky they were to grow in the first place. He did come up with a system to demonstrate this, however, it was based around luck more than anything else at the base line. Now you can say that luck isn't really luck, and it's just following through with a system and plan, in which case, you're saying that there's a God.

Another A > B > Pink Lemonade situation, here.

I agree with Hubbell - and am happy to know we're talking about Steve Hubbell, and not Irwin Hubble, as I initially presumed - that evolution [and particularly the portion of it that has to do with the interactions of various species - is based more on "luck" than anything else, provided that when we say luck, we mean, "a system too complex for us to discern the nature of." This is just the fractal theory of biodiversity, as set down by Huisman and Weissing.

But just because there is a system doesn't mean there's a plan. If I drop a bowling ball off the top of the Sears Tower and hit you in the head, that's luck. There was a system - I released a ball, it fell in a trajectory that intersected with your head - but there was no plan. God isn't necessary for cause and effect relationships.

If there's a God, then if you trace it back far enough eventually he needs a damn reson for doing things, which will probably be random.

I'm sure the Christians on the board will be pleased to let God know, when they go to sleep tonight, that someone has very conclusively proven that his reasons for the creation of the universe are random. Very nice proof, there.

[Jestyr]

Reply from my father:

I'd never heard of Hubbell, but sent a message round the School and got put on to Stephen P. Hubbell's book, as available on Amazon (with some sample pages). Apparently Hubbell is a terrestrial ecologist, who has been working on colonization of "old field" sites (farm fields that have been allowed to regress back to forest over periods of up to 120 years). The theory seems to deal with island biogeography, in the sense that it shows how biodiversity relates to habitat area, plus immigration and extinctions of species and suchlike.

Not having seen the book or any of his papers, I don't know how it relates to complex systems. I'd guess that somewhere he has to account for randomness and the emergent behaviour of complex ecological networks, but he may not - or may bury that aspect in his initial assumptions. Can't say more until I've read what he's written. He seems to be part of the establishment, not on the fringe, so it's probably accepted as reasonable stuff. Take a look at Amazon, then you'll know as much as I do!

Do you want me to chase this up? Might take a couple of weeks or so, but happy to do it. I'm going to check it out anyway, so can do that sooner rather than later if it would help.

I'll ask him to follow it up. Sounds like it's Complexity Theory to me, though, not true randomness.

[Eva]

Your dad is the man. :o) I like this line especially:

I'm going to check it out anyway, so can do that sooner rather than later if it would help.

´You brought it up so now I have to know!´ Very cool.

[3278]

Most heartily agreed. Give your dad something he likes for us.