Physics of Dreams

nismaratwork

Yes, and it matters because you learn by studying what's broken, and what's not. That knowledge is then applicable in a variety of contexts, such as treating illness where those "chemical reactions" as you put it... as though it were so simple as vinegar and soda. Why examine anything using science?... partly for the sake of knowing, and partly because you can't predict what the journey alone will bring; maybe something entirely unrelated?

Certainly a clear understanding of complex neurological function would allow for an entirely new approach to treating a variety of mental illnesses, and just plain ILLNESS.

The question you should be asking: 'Do MOST researchers set out to find the chemistry of love, or is learning about that a consequence of research into a number of diseases and TBIs?'. You're just ranting without giving a moment's thought to just what is wagging on that dog.

Yeah, it does, welcome to science!

DanP

And why do you beleive those results are pointless ?


Yes you can explain the working of human brain with science. Yes, the big problems of human nature, cooperation, aggression, love, sex , free will, morality, dreams where downgraded the last decades from mysteries to actual problems in science. We are getting there.

Yes, there is enough science out there to tell you what are the releasing stimulus for sexual behavior, cooperation, aggression. Its incredibly complex, but its science.


It makes perfect sense to analyze human nature, and do-it with science, not with empty philosophy. Unraveling the mystery behind the rainbow doesn't ruin it's beauty :P Knowing why & how I get an erection doesn't make sex less appealing :P

nismaratwork

re: your last sentence: True. I've never been in the middle of an orgasm and thought, "Gee, I used to like this more before I knew about endorphins!!" No... it's a grim scene with silly faces; knowing about our animal nature will not change it.

I like your post DanP, and your last point is perfect.

DanP

Most humans are afraid of moral nihilism when you unravel the "mysteries" of human nature. Of a now breed of amoral creatures walking under the sun and pissing over all that it is sacred. This is why they oppose any research which tends to throw light on the contribution of biology as a modulative factor in the human behavior.

How sad is this. To have your morale justified only by the existence of a "soul", a powerful supernatural being, by the belief that humans are "noble savages", or by the belief that it must be a higher purpose to the existence of humans, that we occupy a special place in creation.

This is why books like Dawkin;s "Selfish gene" reportedly caused severe cases of depression in some individuals. Because they where smart enough to believe the evolutionary view, and yet not anchored enough in reality to deal with the loss of faith in the "special" nature of humans.

nismaratwork

Yep! I'm a moral relativist, but I still choose to act a certain way, in part because it FEELS right and good. I eat some foods because they taste good... and I don't need any more justification than that. In my experience, tasty foods and good behaviour are much the same: very rewarding when taken in sensible proportions.

Then you have the golden rule, in whatever form... reciprocity... a fine principle.

chaoseverlasting

Again, I understand where the two of you are coming from, and I get what you're saying. In fact, without sounding condescending, I used to adhere to your point of view. It's just that I sort of over analyzed everything to death from relationships to human behaviour to everything around me, and I never really saw the point of it.

To be honest, this is more of a philosophical difference than one that concerns the guiding principles of science. There comes a point, when even though you can analyze something, it is better, holistically, not to. The whole truly is greater than the sum of all its parts.

At most what all your analysis will get you is how one specific function is carried out. As you figure out other parts of the system and understand better how each 'module' functions, you think you have a complete understanding of the human system. What I'm saying is, that at some juncture, the analytical powers of science become useless.

True, at a very fundamental level, you understand the human 'system'; but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts!

I realise parts of my response sound like trash philosophy in the form a of a pseudo moralistic rant, unfortunately from my limited experience in life, I find it to be true.

DanP

To be honest, that is your problem. If you are an over-analyzer, who analyzes everything at the expense of doing, you'll fall in that trap anyway, regardless what you know about X or Y. You'll fall in that trap even if you don't know anything.

If we would be so unlucky that this mentality you present here would be representative of humankind, we would still be in stone age, and you would get treated in hospitals by shamans.

Your problem is that you think too much. But at "philosophical luft" instead of specific problems to be solved.

Humans are predictable. Even on the basis of simple folk psychology. Anyway, science does not pretend absolute, complete, knowledge of humans.

nismaratwork

I think you're expressing your own experience as best you can. Unfortunately I'm not sure if it applies very well to this situation, or serves you well in the long run.

chaoseverlasting

Unfortunately, as you do not know me in the real world, I cannot really substantiate my claims or refute the points you make. If my ability to apply things in real life and actually do something with the knowledge I have is in question, perhaps this can serve as an indicator:

I just gave the CAT (Common Aptitude Test), which all aspiring MBA's have to give in India for admission into the IIM's and other institutions. I stand in the top 2 percentile of all the people who gave that exam (more than 150,000 this year, I think). I stand a decent chance of getting into a college whose acceptance rate is greater than 500:1.

I'm probably going to finish at the top of my class studying Electrical and Electronics Engineering. I have been doing research projects with my professors since the first year of college in computer graphics and mathematics, although with limited success. Throughout my academic life, I have been in the top one or two percent of students I have ever compteted with. I could go on.

I dont know if all that makes any difference at all our current argument, but I seriously think that you've missed my point. It's not about 'not doing' or not applying your knowledge.

In India, the academic situation is such that you're competing since you're in the 10th grade, and the competition is not very pretty (in fact because of the number of student suicides, several significant changes have been made to the educaiton system in the near past). So, as far as applying my knowledge and my understanding of psychology (more practical than theoretical) is concerned, I'm not really out in the woods.

Perhaps it also has to do with the eastern take on philosophy, which I believe is much more holistic than the western perspective (if you're from the western world). There are concepts like maya and karma that we use to understand the world, which if taken out of context seem like they encourage procrastination of the highest (or lowest) form, but they encourage, in fact, the exact opposite sentiment.

nismaratwork

You may be right: certainly it's folly to fail to recognize culture-bound beliefs and views. There are entire neuroses that are culture bound, but wouldn't be considered problematic if raised to believe X. People in this country, by and large, believe that either a very cranky, or very kindly fellow is looking out for them from a heaven... OOOOK. The Navajo both don't have, and have only; religion; I wouldn't call someone who believes in animism crazy or misguided, I just disagree.

I would add, I don't think that the concept of say, Dharma, leads to laziness! That's a heavy load to live under; the need to follow a purpose, and in failing to do so gaining Karma that has to be worked through "later". I think the issue here is that you're describing your personal faith, which is fine; you've described a life free of complications of clinical significance as a result: i.e. go for it. There's really nothing you've said to agree or disagree with: it's theology. Unfortunately I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by posting it in a thread called, "the physics of dreams".

chaoseverlasting

It isnt about culture bound beliefs! I cant belive that I cant get the point across to you! Certainly, because of the cultures that I've been exposed to my perspective varies, but the basic principle still holds!

Ok, to boil the argument down to the basic ideas being contested: you're saying that we should analyze everything if we can and to analyze everything is the purpose of science. What I'm saying is that we should analyze the world around us, but beyond a point, specially as applied to human beings, analysis as a tool is, at best, limited!

You cant honestly believe that everything we will learn as the result of analyzing, clinically, the human condition will help us live better lives. Its analogous to 'quants' using the chaos theory to 'predict' the stock market!

DanP

Luft.

So yeah, like I said, we are lucky that humans on average do not think as you do. We take as little as we can to learn more. Some of you seem OK to sit back and relax, convinced of the impotence of our scientific techniques, which, btw, are ever-evolving.

It already improves our lives. Do you know why we can treat, albeit with limited success, psychiatric disorder ? Because we learned a great deal of how our brain works. Do you know why can we help ppl with sleep disturbances ? Because we started to get an iddea of the neurobiology of sleep. Do you know why we can help ppl with grave cases of depression ? Because we didn't gave up, and wasted time with idiotic philosophical questions, but we unraveled partially the molecular mechanisms involved in it.

nismaratwork

I don't believe you understand what "culture-bound" means. It's a specific term of art in psychology/psychiatry.

I don't believe I've made that argument, but it seems sound.

Who's arguing otherwise? That doesn't mean there has to be a magical means of exploring beyond that realm. Maybe there are other means, but you need to show what those are and not simply expect others to accept your logic. Just as scientists don't say, "Hey, we're not sure about this gravity thing, but we got together and decided: it's gremlins carrying heavy sacks that mediate gravity within the framework of QM." Find me some gremlins, then we'll talk, until then you sound like a casualty of the recent Philosophy forum crackdown... and I'm sooooo not interested in that.

Well, you've just conflated the very reasonable view that I do take, with how this improves things. Nobody ever said that what we learn makes life better, but that's not a reason to invent a happier world to live in. Even if you posit a supernatural realm (and I'm not saying you are) it would be open to examination; maybe it would be a fruitless examination if you're trying to predict, but science isn't JUST about prediction.

I think you have a number of wrong ideas about science and scientists, which is fine... lots of people do. It would be a pity if all you learned here was how to reinforce your preconceptions.

Evo

Closed due to complaints.