|
tweakabelle -> RE: OK, if the soul begins from conception, then what about identical twins? (3/9/2012 3:19:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I do hope you aren't asserting the origins of (say) love, or the need to love and be loved are located in the limbic system.
quote:
ORIGINAL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/200906/cupid-s-poisoned-arrow-primer
Human love lives are complex. One of the underlying reasons may be that we have two conflicting genetic programs at work in our limbic system, both of which have subtle, but powerful influences on our intimate relationships. I will discuss those programs, and the tension between them, at length in other posts, but here let me clarify what I mean by some terms I will be using. I'll update this post as needed.
The limbic system, pictured above, is a very old part of the brain, which is surprisingly similar in all mammals. This explains why experiments on rats can help scientists understand how human brains function. As my husband observed, "Scientists aren't doing experiments on rats to learn how to help rats with their erections and addictions."
So why should lovers care about their brain's limbic system? Because it is the part of the brain from which our emotions and drives arise. It's where we experience the thrills of sexual arousal and orgasm (and their aftermath). The limbic system is also where we fall in (and out) of love. It operates subconsciously, recording our likes and dislikes, coloring our impressions, and judging every experience and person constantly...and instantly.
This is the second time you have found very conservative quotes that advance very contentionious claims as unproblemmatic. The first time was in relation to Godel's Theorem.
Godel showed that paradox is built into the structure of maths, that in any closed system of knowledge, one can have consistency or completeness but not both. In other words , knowledge systems will be at best partial, and subject to internal contradiction or inadequate explanation of the data. In short, we can't have a theory of everything.* Science has no claim to produce 'truth' it produces working hypotheses that some people erroneously elevate to the status of truth.
.
Now we asked to consider a claim that emotions arise in the limbic system which is based upon the contentious and unproven assumption that genetic inheritances control such things. Again highly dubious. You can run with this claim if you choose to, but until the basic assumption is proven, it will retain the status of opinion or belief - it will be an act of faith.
There are lots of other ways of arriving at this conclusion (we can't have a theory of everything) that don't rely on Godel. So unless you are prepared to claim that humans can develop an accurate, consistent and complete theory of everything, (and I have never heard anyone make that claim), then you are obliged to accept that the best logic and reason can produce is a partial system of knowledge.
AFAIK, there is nothing anyone can do about this, except change the rules of knowledge. To assert that logic and reason are the only route to a complete and consistent understanding is to make a claim that can easily be described as superstitious. Logic and reason are usually the best routes to understanding, but to assert that they are always the best and only route (which seems implied by your position) is not justified by current epistemological understandings.
* For a more complete development of this position, see Jacob Bronowoski, 'The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination' (1978)
|
|
|
|
