Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The True Nature of the Spleen of Existence

  1. Apr 30, 2003 #1
    Follow your spleen, not your mind. Only that can lead to enlightenment. When you open yourself to the wisdom of your spleen, you discove the miracle of the true nature of existence, and can fulfill your divine purpose.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2003 #2
    This sounds like Sage advise. I'll give it a go, thanks!
  4. Apr 30, 2003 #3
    The spleen that can be spoken of is not the eternal spleen.
  5. Apr 30, 2003 #4
    But Master, what does the spleen do? ... Is not life but like a box of chocolates?
  6. May 1, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    DD, if you have a more useful, clear and
    in general better philosophy than the one
    of the person you're apparently trying to mock
    (as far as I can see, at least) - please,
    reveal it to our judgement.

    Live long and prosper.
  7. May 1, 2003 #6
    The spleen does nothing and, thus, everything is done. Life is not a box of chocolates, life is the essence of the spleen which can only be realized through the eating of the chocolates.
  8. May 1, 2003 #7
    Humor and humility are integral aspects of my philosophy, its the scathing sarcasm and personal insults that sometimes bug me. Serious sarcasm and personal insults are never pretty, but you know you've hit someone where it hurts when that's the best argument they can come up with. Especially here with all the exceptionally educated people who frequent the site and the moderators who monitor everything. :0)
  9. May 1, 2003 #8
    Yes, I do. Your brain is the only bodily organ that thinks. Your heart just pumps blood, and emotions do not lead you to truth.
  10. May 1, 2003 #9
    Excellent point. I think the spleen was a good choice for the organ, to substitute "heart", in this kind of reasoning. They are both organs, with assigned purposes (or not, what does a spleen actually do?), but they are not the "seat of emotion" as some believe.
  11. May 1, 2003 #10
    Sorry, but this is patently absurd. People have been discovered who due to brain injuries possess little or no emotions. With the exception of being able to draw upon their memories before the accident for relavent contexts, they are aimless walking computers which cannot place anything in any kind of meaningful context. Tell them to hop on one foot all day and they may well do so just as your computer will churn out endless meaningless trivia forever if asked to do so.

    You should check out the discussion in the thread "The Seat of Consciousness." Before knocking your own biological and emotional heritage using nothing but tautological rubbish you should investigate the scientific evidence.

  12. May 2, 2003 #11
    I am confused, Wu Li. How does that contradit what I said? It only supports it.
  13. May 2, 2003 #12
    The Heart of Reality

    From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  14. May 2, 2003 #13
    Its a bit like saying the cpu in my computer is the only part of my computer that thinks, which is patently absurd. Take the cpu chip out and it makes a nice nick knack, but it can't work without the rest of the computer.

    Not only emotions, but touch as well--feelings in every sense of the word--are integral to thought. The more complex the mind of an animal, the more integral they are. Certainly I still think if I loose my big toe, but then, I can also still think if I loose a significant part of my brain.

    This is also apparent in evolutionary biology. Why you might ask, if all it took was a larger brain and opposible thumb didn't intelligence evolve sooner? The answer is that I can't take a modern CPU and just plug it into a ten year old computer and I can't just take human brain and attach it to a rats body. They form an integrated system and in some real sense you actually do some of your best thinking--and feeling-- with your big toe.
    Last edited: May 2, 2003
  15. May 2, 2003 #14
    Analogies only go so far. A human being is not directly analogous to a PC.

    Emotions are definitely important. I never said that they aren't. I said that emotions don't lead you to truth. (There is an exception, though--coincidence.) What I mean by this is that "feeling in your heart" that something is true is no grounds for believing so. Only through reasoning can you decipher or understand truth through any means other than coincidence. This is not to say that emotion does not provide the inspiration, the motivation to reason--it obviously does provide the inspiration.

    Obviously, the brain interacts with the body. But that does not mean that the heart thinks. My complaint is with the mind/heart dualism that is obviously rubbish, as the brain is the emotional and logical center of the body. Some people tell you to believe in something because your "heart" says so, not because your "mind" says so. In other words, they are saying to trust your emotions, even when they are contrary to what your logical abilities tell you. "Find god in your heart." and other fairy-tale stuff like that. Your emotions cannot directly reveal to you what is true, except by coincidence.
    Your heart pumps blood. While it may send some kinds of chemical signals to the brain, it is not the thinking part of the body. You could replace someone's heart with a babboon heart, and he/she would still have the same personality.
  16. May 2, 2003 #15
    What is a brain without a body? What is a body without a heart? What is a human being without a soul?

    "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Matthew 22:37)
  17. May 2, 2003 #16
    Emotions most definitely can lead you to truths, often truths that logic simply cannot touch and vice versa. For example, I know my mamma loves me not because logic tells me its true, but because my heart tells me its true. Likewise, both logic and your feelings can lead you astray.

    It isn't nature vs. nurture, but nature And nurture. Likewise, it isn't feelings vs. logic, but feelings And logic. One without the other is an oxymoron.

    The heart Feels and, therefore, thinks in some respects. In and of itself it may possess quite rudimentary intelligence and virtually nothing in the way of abstract thought, but that is not quite the same thing as being utterly devoid of thought.

    Again, it is not emotions and thoughts (ie mind) vs. sensation, it is mind And sensation. One without the other is an oxymoron. My computer has no mind as far as anyone can tell, but then, it has no sensation either.
  18. May 2, 2003 #17
    Merely for the purposes of clarification, the Hebrew word here rendered "soul" (ne'phesh), actually means "self".
  19. May 2, 2003 #18
    I don't agree with this reasoning. I know many people who have been said, by psychiatrists, to be devoid of most of the emotions of normal human beings. However, these people were actually rather exceptional at using their intellectual capabilities. In fact, it seems as though the lack of emotion, un-clouds (if that's a word) one's mind.
  20. May 2, 2003 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Do you speak Hebrew Mentat ?
  21. May 2, 2003 #20
    I've studied it a little, in my studying of the Bible. Why?
  22. May 2, 2003 #21
    Yeah, and serial killers don't feel guilt and the autistic can not empathize or really sympathize. As I said before, people with documented brain damage have been discovered who really don't have much at all in the way of emotions and the result is they cannot place anything in a context they had not already learned habitually to use. As for what psychiatrists say, pay me a hundred dollars an hour for such worthless disciplines as psychoanalysis and what do you expect? They often spout meaningless nonsense and then throw a prescription at you along with the bill.

    Of course, that's not to say emotions can't cloud the mind, simply that they provide irreplacable context and are the most likely candidate upon which the higher reasoning powers are founded.
    Last edited: May 2, 2003
  23. May 2, 2003 #22
    I'm not sure where you get that, but as far as I know, people who lack emotions tend be cognitively impaired in many other respects. They do fine solving logic problems, but they fall far below par with rational decision making and planning ahead. Logical but not reasonable, if you will.
  24. May 2, 2003 #23


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You probably didn't score that high.
  25. May 2, 2003 #24

    No, you may feel that your mama loves you, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. There are lots of women who are beaten by their "lovers" and swear that "he loves me, he really does". Now, if you analyze the person, you can have some idea of whether or not the person feels like she/he loves you. These same actions that you can analyze may also lead you to "feel" that she/he loves you, but either a) it's really your reasoning that tells you that or b) it's a coincidence.

    That's not true. An Athlon XP 1700+ processes uses logic--it's nothing but logic circuitry, but it feels nothing.

    The heart does not feel, it only sends signals for the brain to interpret. Obviously, the heart is part of a system of that interacts with your brain, but that is as far as it goes.

    I don't know where I brought up emotion. As far as a computer having a "mind", that depends on how you define "mind". But it definitely thinks, without having any emotion or sensation. And even humans have emotions without sensation. I'm sure that there are people somewhere who are completely numb. You don't need to feel a touch or taste a taste or see a sight to think, although, as humans, we might go just a little crazy without, but that is part of our genetic programming. Being happy or glad can be independent of sensual (that's not what I meant...you have a dirty mind) interaction with an outside world. Reasoning can be done without it, as well, as computers can be quite good at that.
  26. May 2, 2003 #25

    Don't you start talkin' trash 'bout my mamma boy! Just kidding.

    Actually there have been experiments done that validate my view. In one experiment people were asked to judge the difficulty of the slop of a hill they were about to climb. First they responded verbally then they were asked to demonstrate with their hand. The results of experiments like these showed beyond a reasonable doubt that these people's conscious minds at least were often dead wrong while their subconscious minds were dead on.

    Similar results were discovered during split brain experiments. Essentially the verbally and mathematically adept half of the subjects' minds would frequently lie. It takes brains to lie effectively. The list of such experiments that demonstrate the power of emotion and intuition is long. To argue against such things without providing the slightest evidence is presumptuous to say the least.

    The problem revolves around the principle of GIGO, which you are demonstrating very well right now. Garbage in, garbage out. If you told your computer to endlessly write "Wu Li Sucks" it would do so until it died. If that's your idea of intelligence or consciousness, you are welcome to it. I shall cultivate wisdom instead, which right now is telling me it is pointless to argue with you.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook