All of the arguments lead back to...what is happiness? Is there such a thing as true happiness, or is happiness only pleasurable feelings in the brain? What about people who are happy doing something abstract, like helping someone? Real happiness is an emotional/spiritual state, and while physical things can contribute a lot to happiness, they are not happiness in themselves. Drug addicts aren't happy people. Drugs serve only to intensify the emotional state that they're in, or allow them to get away from their problems. That's not happiness.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 29 2004, 12:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 29 2004, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All of the arguments lead back to...what is happiness? Is there such a thing as true happiness, or is happiness only pleasurable feelings in the brain? What about people who are happy doing something abstract, like helping someone? Real happiness is an emotional/spiritual state, and while physical things can contribute a lot to happiness, they are not happiness in themselves. Drug addicts aren't happy people. Drugs serve only to intensify the emotional state that they're in, or allow them to get away from their problems. That's not happiness.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I were to somehow stimulate the "pleasure center" of your brain, you would be decidely happy (yes, there is a portion of the brain that can be stimulated to produce happiness). You wouldn't be high-on-drugs happy, and you might question why you were happy, but you would be happy. Thus, we can conclude that happiness is the result of some biological process triggered by certain chemicals. Ultimately, this is where happiness occurs.
The road to happiness is a different matter. While the process mentioned above (artificially induced happiness) results in happiness, one could consider it to be "counterfeit" happiness. I think what you're trying to describe is "spiritual happiness," or happiness achieved by natural means. Ultimately, however, the same biological process would be called upon to stimulate happiness in the brain. Also - natural happiness is difficult to classify, as I'll try to demonstrate:
<!--QuoteBegin-kida+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Totally true man. I could never be truly happy without knowing why I am happy or what it is that makes me happy. Just being happy without knowing why is just a feeling.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That makes no sense - it's circular reasoning. If you were <i>happy</i>, but you weren't aware of why you were happy, then you aren't <i>happy</i>. A more logical statement would be "I could never be naturally happy if my happiness was artifically induced." However, that statement isn't neccessarily true in all cases - excercise releases endorphines, which triggers positive mood changes and happiness in the brain. Another example would be music - it's hard to deny that music has an influence on your mood. I would hardly consider excercise or listening to music to be unnatural.
Also, illuminex, stop assuming that because you're unable to provide a conclusive definition to happiness, that no one else should attempt to do so. Science approaches a level of critical thought that you seem to be refusing to approach - for reasons I can't comprehend. And just what scientific branches <i>are</i> you familiar with, anyhow?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, illuminex, stop assuming that because you're unable to provide a conclusive definition to happiness, that no one else should attempt to do so. Science approaches a level of critical thought that you seem to be refusing to approach - for reasons I can't comprehend. And just what scientific branches are you familiar with, anyhow? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't have anything to do with me on a personal level. Science's critical thought level is the same as any human's. Stop worshiping science for a few minutes and really think about an abstract idea like happiness. You are far more capable of making a decision about "happiness" than a psychologist with 34 years of experience.
Once again, what is happiness? Am I happy having sex? Yes, no, maybe. Am I being pleasured? Without a doubt. But is happiness really that simple and animalistic? Maybe it is, and that's it. Or maybe it is something more. Or, it might even be both. Science is going to talk about "neurons," "chemicals," and "stimulating brain centers" until it is blue in the fact, and that's fine. We all understand that there's a sense of physical happiness when we're being pleasured. No one's denying that. But how many times are people <i>unhappy</i> when they're making millions per year, have a different woman every week, and power over hundreds of people? Many, many times.
Science consistently falls short on explaining human nature. I don't need a degree to say that. It's so easy to say "well, it's a genetic predisposition," or "happiness is just a feeling of pleasure from x area of the brain." It's so easy to think that, to say that, and to live life by that. That way, there is no standard to live up to, no reason to be better, no reason to help other people, no reason to be human.
Critical thinking and science are worlds apart on so much of the time. Some of the most dangerous ideas in science have been rejected or ignored because they force Science to admit that they cannot control something. Chaos Theory is one such thing. Understanding the world does not mean you can control it. It just means you can understand it, nothing more, nothing less.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are far more capable of making a decision about "happiness" than a psychologist with 34 years of experience. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if that makes sense to you, I can get you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Critical thinking and science are worlds apart on so much of the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...Man Illuminex, do you even know what the hell science is?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Some of the most dangerous ideas in science have been rejected or ignored because they force Science to admit that they cannot control something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or they have been rejected because they are backed by sketchy evidence, amoung other things. Seriously man, what are you smoking?
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Sep 29 2004, 10:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 29 2004, 10:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are far more capable of making a decision about "happiness" than a psychologist with 34 years of experience. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if that makes sense to you, I can get you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Critical thinking and science are worlds apart on so much of the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...Man Illuminex, do you even know what the hell science is?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Some of the most dangerous ideas in science have been rejected or ignored because they force Science to admit that they cannot control something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or they have been rejected because they are backed by sketchy evidence, amoung other things. Seriously man, what are you smoking? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Cannibus?
Happiness is a result. The <b>choice</b> to be happy is just a decision like anything else.
Therefore it's a feeling driven by a decision, if that makes sense.
Five frogs, sittin' on logs, four decide to jump in the pond, how many are left on the log.
.
.
.
5, the other four <b>decided</b> to jump in, they didn't <b>jump in.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not nessesarily contesting this. I'm only saying that illuminex's views on science are... well... theres no polite way to put it: stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree entirely, considering you're just another worshiper of science, no better than the believer of any religion. Science is driven by politics, agendas, etc. Get a grip on reality man. Why don't you actually try using the "critical thinking" you extol so much. Science is the pursuit of understanding, when it's convenient.
My whole point here is that Science, as it "explores" these portions of the Human Condition, needs to be considered as what it <i>really</i> is, instead of what it is supposed to be.
Scientists are people with jobs, just like anyone else. And when your paycheck comes from grant money, a new field that could make your area of study obsolete...well, come not, you're not going to want that new scientific breakthrough. Imagine whole arenas of Science throwing up their arms and massacring anything new that comes down the pike that could potentially take away that grant money. It's been happening in the scientific community, just like it has in every other community since the beginning of human consciousness.
On yeah, I think you might be interesting in noting that the Pharmecutical companies have a vested interest in Science's pursuit of "happiness." And hey, if you're convinced that Happiness is simply a particular brainwave in a particular area of the brain, buy their pills. You'd make a great consumer in my book.
Anyways, listen, if you want to be a slave to someone else's agenda, be my guest. I know what is best for me, and no Scientist can tell me any different.
If this hurt your brain because it made you think, you can always try some of those new pills that are out. They might help you not think so hard.
Edit: Removed personal insult. My apologies, Skulkbait.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 30 2004, 12:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 30 2004, 12:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not nessesarily contesting this. I'm only saying that illuminex's views on science are... well... theres no polite way to put it: stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree entirely, considering you're just another worshiper of science, no better than the believer of any religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except that science is provable. At least a good chunk of it is. The rest is waiting to be proved or disproved. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Science is driven by politics, agendas, etc. Get a grip on reality man. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To a point everything is. But you make it sound as though all science is a sham. As though it can't ever be trusted. If you honestly believe that then why are you here amoungst the civilized and not out in the woods somewhere living off fish you catch with your bare hands?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why don't you actually try using the "critical thinking" you extol so much. Science is the pursuit of understanding, when it's convenient.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or just whenever. If your so intent on proving that science is worthless than cast off all your clothes and live naked in the woods. Thats where you'd be without science. What the hell do you mean by "when it is convienient" anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My whole point here is that Science, as it "explores" these portions of the Human Condition, needs to be considered as what it <i>really</i> is, instead of what it is supposed to be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> For the most part, it IS what it is supposed to be. I dare you to prove otherwise. And anecdotal evidence will not be accepted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Scientists are people with jobs, just like anyone else. And when your paycheck comes from grant money, a new field that could make your area of study obsolete... well, come not, you're not going to want that new scientific breakthrough.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tell me oh wise Illuminex, when was the last time a breakthrough made an entire scientific disipline obsolite? Besides, even if you didn't wan't the breakthrough there is nothing you can really do about it. Because somebody somewhere wanted it bad enough to pay for the research.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Imagine whole arenas of Science throwing up their arms and massacring anything new that comes down the pike that could potentially take away that grant money. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd have to imagine it, because IT DOESNT HAPPEN.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's been happening in the scientific community, just like it has in every other community since the beginning of human consciousness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Cite if you will, oh wise one, just ONE example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On yeah, I think you might be interesting in noting that the Pharmecutical companies have a vested interest in Science's pursuit of "happiness." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If they didn't, we wouldn't have viagra or ridilin. Nor would we have much of the medication used to keep people alive (viagra was an experimental heart medication before its side effect was discovered). Like all corporations they have a vested interest in making money. They just happen to be making money by selling the end result of scientific research.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And hey, if you're convinced that Happiness is simply a particular brainwave in a particular area of the brain, buy their pills. You'd make a great consumer in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is just a chemical reaction in my brain. As are all my thoughts and emotions. Still, that doesn't mean I want to go injecting myself with happy chemicals (for one, they are rather expensive). Besides, we influence our brain chemestry all the time. Music does it, regular noise does it, certain colors and shapes do it, alchohol does it for sure...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyways, listen, if you want to be a slave to someone else's agenda, be my guest. I know what is best for me, and no Scientist can tell me any different.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Remember that the next time you drink pasturized milk and be thankfull that it isn't swarming with bacteria. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If this hurt your brain because it made you think, you can always try some of those new pills that are out. They might help you not think so hard. Simpleton.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do that when there is the Illuminex method? I'll just denounce things that don't fit into my worldview and I'll be all set.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 30 2004, 12:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 30 2004, 12:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not nessesarily contesting this. I'm only saying Scientists are people with jobs, just like anyone else. And when your paycheck comes from grant money, a new field that could make your area of study obsolete...well, come not, you're not going to want that new scientific breakthrough. Imagine whole arenas of Science throwing up their arms and massacring anything new that comes down the pike that could potentially take away that grant money. It's been happening in the scientific community, just like it has in every other community since the beginning of human consciousness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because I'm sure nobody here remembers that the "end of science" due to amazing breakthroughs has been forecast so many times its more of a running gag by now. Has it ever occurred to you that all the trendy criticism and the "science = religion" line you've well beaten to death now might just have tricked you into what you claim to abhor - namely assuming their are singular answers? No matter the breakthrough, no matter the revelations on chaos theorys and whatnot - they will not end anything, answer anything indefinitely or be the ultimate. Nor will they not require countless centurys worth of manpower invested to bear any fruits at all. These things are as much valid science as the more established fields, and just like that <b>they're not freaking miracle cures either</b> (debates on their validity aside for a moment).
Furthermore, you seem to deny the most obvious part of scientific models : They do <b>not</b> claim to represent actual happenings or be the ultimate way it really works. Pretty much every method used to understand complex ideas is a <b>model</b>, not a literal explanation - the same goes for neurons and brainwaves. They're models made by humans to understand whats essentially just a pulpy mass inside your head. Theres no brainsurfers out there riding them brainwaves, as little as an electron is necessarily a miniature perfect sphere. These models are not intended to be applied to your life directly - they're intended to explain cause and effect within the limited scope of their design. So that we can for example comprehend when stimulation of the brain occurs, or that we can understand how 2 elements might react together in a perfectly clean enviroment.
In conclusion, the very nature of science is open-ended and does not answer any questions. Failure to comprehend that does however not entitle you to sweeping generalizations and under-informed statements <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If this hurt your brain because it made you think, you can always try some of those new pills that are out. They might help you not think so hard. Simpleton.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe I just missed it, but if all things going on in the mind are entirely ethereal (as your reasoning implys), shouldn't those happy pills have absolutely no effect and impair his thinking none at all, beyond improving the health of a totally unrelated physical organ? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 29 2004, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 29 2004, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Happiness is a result. The <b>choice</b> to be happy is just a decision like anything else.
Therefore it's a feeling driven by a decision, if that makes sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, not always. You may be happy because someone brought you a nice present. You didn't make a decision, and you weren't planning on being given a present, but you're still happy.
To think critically is to doubt. Entirely the opposite of faith. Bad science is generally a result of failure to doubt (and a little Occam's Razor goes a long way). Religion does not require critical thinking, but isn't inherantly harmed by it either.
Happiness is a matter of perspective. If you think that 10k candy bars will make you happy, and you don't have 10k candy bars, then you are most likely unhappy just because of it. Actually having the candy doesn't matter, it's the want that discourages happiness. Having no wants, whether through drugs or self discovery/fulfillment, leads to happiness.
A man with nothing but his life can be just as happy as a man with the world in his hands, so long as they are no longer seeking more.
Not surprisingly, the above sounds an awful lot like Bhuddism.
As the expression goes, "life is in the living." Same goes for happiness.
I'll agree with that, and also say that fulfilling wants (deciding to attain happiness) may not lead to happiness anyway. Two people may have an ambition to climb Everest; on succeeding, one is happy that he has achieved the goal he always set for himself. The other is sad for the same reason.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Sep 30 2004, 07:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Sep 30 2004, 07:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll agree with that, and also say that fulfilling wants (deciding to attain happiness) may not lead to happiness anyway. Two people may have an ambition to climb Everest; on succeeding, one is happy that he has achieved the goal he always set for himself. The other is sad for the same reason. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen Haliluyah! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Saltz, thanks for hitting on my point from an entirely different perspective. The earlier posters had far too much faith in Science's understanding of the brain, and made an incorrect application of said knowledge to a very abstract ideal, aka Happiness.
Also, thanks for misunderstanding my other points. Nothing I said was about "the end of science." I cited Chaos Theory as one major breakthrough that has had this treatment applied to it. There are major breakthroughs that happen in science, but some of them have a negative effect on other areas of science, and if those other areas happen to be large and influential, well, a "breakthrough" idea can be easily shut down. No breakthrough is an end all be all, and I didn't even imply such a thing.
Nothing that I've said is trendy, in any way, shape, or form. It's not been a trend to attack science since the 1600's or so.
Now Saltz, I honestly expected you to pick of Sarcasm combined with Personal Insult. Sarcasm. S-a-r-c-a-s-m. That was my whole last paragraph. I was making fun of his statements earlier that something that stimulated certain centers of the brain was/could be happiness.
Happiness is in the same category as "love" is; science notes that such a concept exists, but doesn't know exactly where, why, or how. Neither concept makes sense, no model works, etc. Those obscure concepts that drive humans are simply beyond the grasp of science for many reasons.
Edit: I've removed the inappropriate personal insult from a pervious post.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 30 2004, 11:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 30 2004, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Happiness is in the same category as "love" is; science notes that such a concept exists, but doesn't know exactly where, why, or how. Neither concept makes sense, no model works, etc. Those obscure concepts that drive humans are simply beyond the grasp of science for many reasons. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would be willing to bet that there are models for love and happiness that work fairly well (probably emplyed in the online-dating industry), but not being a psychologist I can't be sure. I do seem to recall reading some stuff on "love" in the one required psych class we have here, but the only thing I can remember (I spent most of the class playing X-Com) from it is that, statistically, people who are "in love" have much more in common than not. Which is unsurprising.
And even if such models do not currently exist, I'm sure that there are people working on it and that it will cease to be such a mystery in the near future.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 30 2004, 11:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 30 2004, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Saltz, thanks for hitting on my point from an entirely different perspective. The earlier posters had far too much faith in Science's understanding of the brain, and made an incorrect application of said knowledge to a very abstract ideal, aka Happiness.
Also, thanks for misunderstanding my other points. Nothing I said was about "the end of science." I cited Chaos Theory as one major breakthrough that has had this treatment applied to it. There are major breakthroughs that happen in science, but some of them have a negative effect on other areas of science, and if those other areas happen to be large and influential, well, a "breakthrough" idea can be easily shut down. No breakthrough is an end all be all, and I didn't even imply such a thing.
Nothing that I've said is trendy, in any way, shape, or form. It's not been a trend to attack science since the 1600's or so.
Now Saltz, I honestly expected you to pick of Sarcasm combined with Personal Insult. Sarcasm. S-a-r-c-a-s-m. That was my whole last paragraph. I was making fun of his statements earlier that something that stimulated certain centers of the brain was/could be happiness.
Happiness is in the same category as "love" is; science notes that such a concept exists, but doesn't know exactly where, why, or how. Neither concept makes sense, no model works, etc. Those obscure concepts that drive humans are simply beyond the grasp of science for many reasons.
Edit: I've removed the inappropriate personal insult from a pervious post.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You deserve a medal for toning down the comedy in this one a little.
You err in your argument in that you make the assumption that happiness is an abstract idea, when it is, in fact, a very tangible concept. You claim that it is insufficient to classify happiness as the result of some complex chemical process within our brains because it is too ethereal (/steals saltzbad's term) a concept for science to grasp, but isn't our consciousness no more than a by product of the physical, tangible object that is our mind? Thus, when we study the process of happiness as it relates to our brains, do we not then study the concept of happiness as it relates to our consciouness?
To claim that science has not been without error or hypocrisy throughout its history is to be victim to hypocrisy itself. To attack the credibility of science, however, by describing the highly commercialized state of scientific pursuit as proof of its insincerity is without any basis in fact, and is ultimately an incredulous and a foolishly idealistic argument. Do you even understand just what your pathetic attack on science implies? If science is really as hypocritical and incredible as you claim, then how is it that our computers work, and that you and I are having this (pointless) argument? Do you intend to suggest that taking prozac, a product of science, does <i>not</i> have a profound effect on the mental well being of a person? I really wish you would provide some credible evidence to support your attack on the credibility of science.
BTW Illuminex, "you don't understand my argument" is not an acceptable argument.
Comments
If I were to somehow stimulate the "pleasure center" of your brain, you would be decidely happy (yes, there is a portion of the brain that can be stimulated to produce happiness). You wouldn't be high-on-drugs happy, and you might question why you were happy, but you would be happy. Thus, we can conclude that happiness is the result of some biological process triggered by certain chemicals. Ultimately, this is where happiness occurs.
The road to happiness is a different matter. While the process mentioned above (artificially induced happiness) results in happiness, one could consider it to be "counterfeit" happiness. I think what you're trying to describe is "spiritual happiness," or happiness achieved by natural means. Ultimately, however, the same biological process would be called upon to stimulate happiness in the brain. Also - natural happiness is difficult to classify, as I'll try to demonstrate:
<!--QuoteBegin-kida+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Totally true man. I could never be truly happy without knowing why I am happy or what it is that makes me happy. Just being happy without knowing why is just a feeling.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That makes no sense - it's circular reasoning. If you were <i>happy</i>, but you weren't aware of why you were happy, then you aren't <i>happy</i>. A more logical statement would be "I could never be naturally happy if my happiness was artifically induced." However, that statement isn't neccessarily true in all cases - excercise releases endorphines, which triggers positive mood changes and happiness in the brain. Another example would be music - it's hard to deny that music has an influence on your mood. I would hardly consider excercise or listening to music to be unnatural.
Also, illuminex, stop assuming that because you're unable to provide a conclusive definition to happiness, that no one else should attempt to do so. Science approaches a level of critical thought that you seem to be refusing to approach - for reasons I can't comprehend. And just what scientific branches <i>are</i> you familiar with, anyhow?
It doesn't have anything to do with me on a personal level. Science's critical thought level is the same as any human's. Stop worshiping science for a few minutes and really think about an abstract idea like happiness. You are far more capable of making a decision about "happiness" than a psychologist with 34 years of experience.
Once again, what is happiness? Am I happy having sex? Yes, no, maybe. Am I being pleasured? Without a doubt. But is happiness really that simple and animalistic? Maybe it is, and that's it. Or maybe it is something more. Or, it might even be both. Science is going to talk about "neurons," "chemicals," and "stimulating brain centers" until it is blue in the fact, and that's fine. We all understand that there's a sense of physical happiness when we're being pleasured. No one's denying that. But how many times are people <i>unhappy</i> when they're making millions per year, have a different woman every week, and power over hundreds of people? Many, many times.
Science consistently falls short on explaining human nature. I don't need a degree to say that. It's so easy to say "well, it's a genetic predisposition," or "happiness is just a feeling of pleasure from x area of the brain." It's so easy to think that, to say that, and to live life by that. That way, there is no standard to live up to, no reason to be better, no reason to help other people, no reason to be human.
Critical thinking and science are worlds apart on so much of the time. Some of the most dangerous ideas in science have been rejected or ignored because they force Science to admit that they cannot control something. Chaos Theory is one such thing. Understanding the world does not mean you can control it. It just means you can understand it, nothing more, nothing less.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if that makes sense to you, I can get you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Critical thinking and science are worlds apart on so much of the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...Man Illuminex, do you even know what the hell science is?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Some of the most dangerous ideas in science have been rejected or ignored because they force Science to admit that they cannot control something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or they have been rejected because they are backed by sketchy evidence, amoung other things. Seriously man, what are you smoking?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if that makes sense to you, I can get you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Critical thinking and science are worlds apart on so much of the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...Man Illuminex, do you even know what the hell science is?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Some of the most dangerous ideas in science have been rejected or ignored because they force Science to admit that they cannot control something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or they have been rejected because they are backed by sketchy evidence, amoung other things. Seriously man, what are you smoking? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cannibus?
Happiness is a result. The <b>choice</b> to be happy is just a decision like anything else.
Therefore it's a feeling driven by a decision, if that makes sense.
Five frogs, sittin' on logs, four decide to jump in the pond, how many are left on the log.
.
.
.
5, the other four <b>decided</b> to jump in, they didn't <b>jump in.</b>
~ DarkATi
Happiness is a result. The choice to be happy is just a decision like anything else.
Therefore it's a feeling driven by a decision, if that makes sense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not nessesarily contesting this. I'm only saying that illuminex's views on science are... well... theres no polite way to put it: stupid.
I disagree entirely, considering you're just another worshiper of science, no better than the believer of any religion. Science is driven by politics, agendas, etc. Get a grip on reality man. Why don't you actually try using the "critical thinking" you extol so much. Science is the pursuit of understanding, when it's convenient.
My whole point here is that Science, as it "explores" these portions of the Human Condition, needs to be considered as what it <i>really</i> is, instead of what it is supposed to be.
Scientists are people with jobs, just like anyone else. And when your paycheck comes from grant money, a new field that could make your area of study obsolete...well, come not, you're not going to want that new scientific breakthrough. Imagine whole arenas of Science throwing up their arms and massacring anything new that comes down the pike that could potentially take away that grant money. It's been happening in the scientific community, just like it has in every other community since the beginning of human consciousness.
On yeah, I think you might be interesting in noting that the Pharmecutical companies have a vested interest in Science's pursuit of "happiness." And hey, if you're convinced that Happiness is simply a particular brainwave in a particular area of the brain, buy their pills. You'd make a great consumer in my book.
Anyways, listen, if you want to be a slave to someone else's agenda, be my guest. I know what is best for me, and no Scientist can tell me any different.
If this hurt your brain because it made you think, you can always try some of those new pills that are out. They might help you not think so hard.
Edit: Removed personal insult. My apologies, Skulkbait.
BTW, I have a bridge in the Sahara constructed out of tin foil. You can have it for free.
I disagree entirely, considering you're just another worshiper of science, no better than the believer of any religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that science is provable. At least a good chunk of it is. The rest is waiting to be proved or disproved.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Science is driven by politics, agendas, etc. Get a grip on reality man. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To a point everything is. But you make it sound as though all science is a sham. As though it can't ever be trusted. If you honestly believe that then why are you here amoungst the civilized and not out in the woods somewhere living off fish you catch with your bare hands?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why don't you actually try using the "critical thinking" you extol so much. Science is the pursuit of understanding, when it's convenient.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or just whenever. If your so intent on proving that science is worthless than cast off all your clothes and live naked in the woods. Thats where you'd be without science. What the hell do you mean by "when it is convienient" anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My whole point here is that Science, as it "explores" these portions of the Human Condition, needs to be considered as what it <i>really</i> is, instead of what it is supposed to be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the most part, it IS what it is supposed to be. I dare you to prove otherwise. And anecdotal evidence will not be accepted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Scientists are people with jobs, just like anyone else. And when your paycheck comes from grant money, a new field that could make your area of study obsolete... well, come not, you're not going to want that new scientific breakthrough.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell me oh wise Illuminex, when was the last time a breakthrough made an entire scientific disipline obsolite? Besides, even if you didn't wan't the breakthrough there is nothing you can really do about it. Because somebody somewhere wanted it bad enough to pay for the research.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Imagine whole arenas of Science throwing up their arms and massacring anything new that comes down the pike that could potentially take away that grant money.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd have to imagine it, because IT DOESNT HAPPEN.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It's been happening in the scientific community, just like it has in every other community since the beginning of human consciousness.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cite if you will, oh wise one, just ONE example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
On yeah, I think you might be interesting in noting that the Pharmecutical companies have a vested interest in Science's pursuit of "happiness." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they didn't, we wouldn't have viagra or ridilin. Nor would we have much of the medication used to keep people alive (viagra was an experimental heart medication before its side effect was discovered). Like all corporations they have a vested interest in making money. They just happen to be making money by selling the end result of scientific research.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And hey, if you're convinced that Happiness is simply a particular brainwave in a particular area of the brain, buy their pills. You'd make a great consumer in my book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is just a chemical reaction in my brain. As are all my thoughts and emotions. Still, that doesn't mean I want to go injecting myself with happy chemicals (for one, they are rather expensive). Besides, we influence our brain chemestry all the time. Music does it, regular noise does it, certain colors and shapes do it, alchohol does it for sure...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Anyways, listen, if you want to be a slave to someone else's agenda, be my guest. I know what is best for me, and no Scientist can tell me any different.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember that the next time you drink pasturized milk and be thankfull that it isn't swarming with bacteria.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If this hurt your brain because it made you think, you can always try some of those new pills that are out. They might help you not think so hard. Simpleton.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do that when there is the Illuminex method? I'll just denounce things that don't fit into my worldview and I'll be all set.
Keep it civil, before this thread gets the lockz0rz.
~ DarkATi
Scientists are people with jobs, just like anyone else. And when your paycheck comes from grant money, a new field that could make your area of study obsolete...well, come not, you're not going to want that new scientific breakthrough. Imagine whole arenas of Science throwing up their arms and massacring anything new that comes down the pike that could potentially take away that grant money. It's been happening in the scientific community, just like it has in every other community since the beginning of human consciousness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because I'm sure nobody here remembers that the "end of science" due to amazing breakthroughs has been forecast so many times its more of a running gag by now. Has it ever occurred to you that all the trendy criticism and the "science = religion" line you've well beaten to death now might just have tricked you into what you claim to abhor - namely assuming their are singular answers? No matter the breakthrough, no matter the revelations on chaos theorys and whatnot - they will not end anything, answer anything indefinitely or be the ultimate. Nor will they not require countless centurys worth of manpower invested to bear any fruits at all. These things are as much valid science as the more established fields, and just like that <b>they're not freaking miracle cures either</b> (debates on their validity aside for a moment).
Furthermore, you seem to deny the most obvious part of scientific models : They do <b>not</b> claim to represent actual happenings or be the ultimate way it really works. Pretty much every method used to understand complex ideas is a <b>model</b>, not a literal explanation - the same goes for neurons and brainwaves. They're models made by humans to understand whats essentially just a pulpy mass inside your head. Theres no brainsurfers out there riding them brainwaves, as little as an electron is necessarily a miniature perfect sphere. These models are not intended to be applied to your life directly - they're intended to explain cause and effect within the limited scope of their design. So that we can for example comprehend when stimulation of the brain occurs, or that we can understand how 2 elements might react together in a perfectly clean enviroment.
In conclusion, the very nature of science is open-ended and does not answer any questions. Failure to comprehend that does however not entitle you to sweeping generalizations and under-informed statements <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
If this hurt your brain because it made you think, you can always try some of those new pills that are out. They might help you not think so hard. Simpleton.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe I just missed it, but if all things going on in the mind are entirely ethereal (as your reasoning implys), shouldn't those happy pills have absolutely no effect and impair his thinking none at all, beyond improving the health of a totally unrelated physical organ? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Therefore it's a feeling driven by a decision, if that makes sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, not always. You may be happy because someone brought you a nice present. You didn't make a decision, and you weren't planning on being given a present, but you're still happy.
I realise I'm nitpicking here, though.
Happiness is a matter of perspective. If you think that 10k candy bars will make you happy, and you don't have 10k candy bars, then you are most likely unhappy just because of it. Actually having the candy doesn't matter, it's the want that discourages happiness. Having no wants, whether through drugs or self discovery/fulfillment, leads to happiness.
A man with nothing but his life can be just as happy as a man with the world in his hands, so long as they are no longer seeking more.
Not surprisingly, the above sounds an awful lot like Bhuddism.
As the expression goes, "life is in the living." Same goes for happiness.
Amen Haliluyah! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, thanks for misunderstanding my other points. Nothing I said was about "the end of science." I cited Chaos Theory as one major breakthrough that has had this treatment applied to it. There are major breakthroughs that happen in science, but some of them have a negative effect on other areas of science, and if those other areas happen to be large and influential, well, a "breakthrough" idea can be easily shut down. No breakthrough is an end all be all, and I didn't even imply such a thing.
Nothing that I've said is trendy, in any way, shape, or form. It's not been a trend to attack science since the 1600's or so.
Now Saltz, I honestly expected you to pick of Sarcasm combined with Personal Insult. Sarcasm. S-a-r-c-a-s-m. That was my whole last paragraph. I was making fun of his statements earlier that something that stimulated certain centers of the brain was/could be happiness.
Happiness is in the same category as "love" is; science notes that such a concept exists, but doesn't know exactly where, why, or how. Neither concept makes sense, no model works, etc. Those obscure concepts that drive humans are simply beyond the grasp of science for many reasons.
Edit: I've removed the inappropriate personal insult from a pervious post.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would be willing to bet that there are models for love and happiness that work fairly well (probably emplyed in the online-dating industry), but not being a psychologist I can't be sure. I do seem to recall reading some stuff on "love" in the one required psych class we have here, but the only thing I can remember (I spent most of the class playing X-Com) from it is that, statistically, people who are "in love" have much more in common than not. Which is unsurprising.
And even if such models do not currently exist, I'm sure that there are people working on it and that it will cease to be such a mystery in the near future.
Also, thanks for misunderstanding my other points. Nothing I said was about "the end of science." I cited Chaos Theory as one major breakthrough that has had this treatment applied to it. There are major breakthroughs that happen in science, but some of them have a negative effect on other areas of science, and if those other areas happen to be large and influential, well, a "breakthrough" idea can be easily shut down. No breakthrough is an end all be all, and I didn't even imply such a thing.
Nothing that I've said is trendy, in any way, shape, or form. It's not been a trend to attack science since the 1600's or so.
Now Saltz, I honestly expected you to pick of Sarcasm combined with Personal Insult. Sarcasm. S-a-r-c-a-s-m. That was my whole last paragraph. I was making fun of his statements earlier that something that stimulated certain centers of the brain was/could be happiness.
Happiness is in the same category as "love" is; science notes that such a concept exists, but doesn't know exactly where, why, or how. Neither concept makes sense, no model works, etc. Those obscure concepts that drive humans are simply beyond the grasp of science for many reasons.
Edit: I've removed the inappropriate personal insult from a pervious post.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You deserve a medal for toning down the comedy in this one a little.
You err in your argument in that you make the assumption that happiness is an abstract idea, when it is, in fact, a very tangible concept. You claim that it is insufficient to classify happiness as the result of some complex chemical process within our brains because it is too ethereal (/steals saltzbad's term) a concept for science to grasp, but isn't our consciousness no more than a by product of the physical, tangible object that is our mind? Thus, when we study the process of happiness as it relates to our brains, do we not then study the concept of happiness as it relates to our consciouness?
To claim that science has not been without error or hypocrisy throughout its history is to be victim to hypocrisy itself. To attack the credibility of science, however, by describing the highly commercialized state of scientific pursuit as proof of its insincerity is without any basis in fact, and is ultimately an incredulous and a foolishly idealistic argument. Do you even understand just what your pathetic attack on science implies? If science is really as hypocritical and incredible as you claim, then how is it that our computers work, and that you and I are having this (pointless) argument? Do you intend to suggest that taking prozac, a product of science, does <i>not</i> have a profound effect on the mental well being of a person? I really wish you would provide some credible evidence to support your attack on the credibility of science.
BTW Illuminex, "you don't understand my argument" is not an acceptable argument.