|
|
|
|
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/12/2007 1:27:26 PM | Msg 22...sorry, but I just can't take it too seriously when someone spouts this stuff, especially when they're still a bit wet behind the ears...or they think science can answer everything ;) Why would anyone want to take the magic out of anything for someone? whether we came from some amoeba, a black hole explosion, or some multiple-named deity...it's still a pretty friggin's great miracle that we're all here and we're the way we are.
While science has proven many things, a lot of what they have proven in the past has now been proven to be not what they stated previously. One of the degrees I'm currently going to school for is psychology, and studying biology was part of that...not to mention I read a minimum of 6 good-sized books a week on numerous subjects, and magazines such as Science, Discovery, etc....and it always amazes me when I see an article debunking something science 'proved' previously. Even simple things like the Pill causes cancer - today they foudn they were wrong and it actually prevents cancer; before we were told not to drink coffee and wine as it was so bad for us; today they're saying both are actually healthy for us. And what about the errors around N-rays, Deryargin water, the magneto-optic effect, and cold fusion?
While we may possibly have the theory behind pheremones and chemistry, we still don't understand the why of it, not exactly how it works, or why someone may be genetically predisposed to one's pheremone's but not another's. And if that's the case, why do we humans only have what appears to be a vestigal vomeronasal organ than a complete one? With a complete one, we'd be able to sniff out that chemistry a lot easier ;)
http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/allchin2.html | |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/12/2007 2:32:41 PM | "While science has proven many things, a lot of what they have proven in the past has now been proven to be not what they stated previously"
Your premise discredits my ideas based on the fact that sometimes science gets it wrong. By your logic ANY idea or science can be disproved just because sometimes we get it wrong. This basically works out as a useless and absurd argument. For example I could say that your ideas are wrong, simply because sometimes people get it wrong.
No, science isn’t correct to 100% or we would simply be able to predict the future in whole. But we can certainly use knowledge and observations to our advantage. We’ve noticed that the world is round. Now weather or not this holds true in a 1000 years time or becomes a lot more complicated, perhaps this is some kind of illusion? - We can still use this knowledge and manipulate this fact to our advantage, for example in navigation, to put it simply, it works. – For further discussion see the Science/Philosophy and Religion/Supernatural forums.
Who here hasn’t improved themselves so to be more attractive to be opposite sex? Lets deconstruct that, who here hasn’t observed that x is more attractive so they have gone out changed themselves to become or have x and then reaped the rewards? No one here used makeup? Dressed smart? Showed good manners (or which ever kind of manners their date found attractive)? Showed intelligence? Acted with confidence or grace? Would you bother doing those things if they were repulsive to every human being? Or have you gathered evidence in that those things were helpful and used that knowledge. What’s more was any of this ‘magic’ in anyway?
"Why would anyone want to take the magic out of anything for someone?"
I’ve already answered this in my original post:
“The biggest enemy in making others realise what causes 'chemistry', isn't the knowledge, but people’s inability to believe”
“Lets face it no one likes biological pre-determinism”
and I would want to take the ‘magic’ away because it causes millions of people to be confused and get hurt, through misrepresentation of the truth. One’s hopes are raised and crushed through ill belief. You are entitled to believe any crap you choose to, but please don’t poison other people’s minds with unsubstantiated fairy-tale bullsh!t.
PS: It was message 23 not 22. Message 22 was your own. | |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/12/2007 6:53:05 PM |
They don't wont to accept the true value of physical appearance, voice, smell, height, weight, power, money, breast size, penis size, fame, or popularity. Lets face it no one likes biological pre-determinism.
So true, so true. I've been keenly aware of "social assets" my whole life and yet do believe there is something (i.e. karma, spirituality, etc.) that does override some of what is biologically or socially pre-determined (although socially we can change things - e.g. income). What comprises "chemistry?" I believe some of both - the seen and unseen, the mundane and the magical.
If one understands these theories or principles, among others that transcend them, they can achieve what to most would be impossible. | |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/12/2007 8:55:32 PM | yet do believe there is something (i.e. karma, spirituality, etc.) that does override some of what is biologically or socially pre-determined
You're trying to tell me that attraction is partly caused by karma or other supernatural powers? Give me a break, so one could 'use the force' to cause another to be attracted to him/her self? Reminds me of a humorous mp3 I downloaded in which Yoda seduces a girl using the force. Incidentally George Lucas actually based the force somewhat on Buddhism/pantheism
Seriously, with all due respect my answer to you is the same as one that I used for msg: 26. Furthermore if you could show me indisputable evidence of this phenomenon then I’ll start believing, philosophically though as soon as there’s indisputable evidence of something it is no longer a faith, it is a science.
Psychologically, this supernatural explanation is just an escape goat for not wanting to fully believe the truth. It’s a clever one because most people can’t logically disprove other people’s religions or wouldn’t dare to because of political correctness. Additionally the majority of people are religious or spiritual in one way or another, so you get the people’s vote as well. | |
|
| Chemistry! Would you share your thoughts about it?
Posted: 6/13/2007 4:06:20 AM | There wouldn't be millions of broken hearts if there was mutual chemistry.
That's right. Mutual chemistry felt by two people and cannot be manufactured. Mutual Chemistry was obviously missing in the "millions of broken hearts" .
btw.... there is no chemistry unless it's felt by both persons. It's a phenomenon that is inexplainable and cannot be manufactured. Theres no scientific formula. If that were the case there would be no need for dating sites.
hmmm.... is this thread being hijacked? I though the title of this thread was: Chemistry! Would you share your thoughts about it? not "Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism". | |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/13/2007 8:26:36 AM |
Your premise discredits my ideas based on the fact that sometimes science gets it wrong. By your logic ANY idea or science can be disproved just because sometimes we get it wrong.
Actually, I just take most things with a grain of salt...learn all I can about them form all sides and then make up my own mind on how I feel about it.
Who here hasn’t improved themselves so to be more attractive to be opposite sex? Lets deconstruct that, who here hasn’t observed that x is more attractive so they have gone out changed themselves to become or have x and then reaped the rewards? No one here used makeup? Dressed smart? Showed good manners (or which ever kind of manners their date found attractive)? Showed intelligence? Acted with confidence or grace? Would you bother doing those things if they were repulsive to every human being? Or have you gathered evidence in that those things were helpful and used that knowledge. What’s more was any of this ‘magic’ in anyway?
I’ve never done those things for someone else; I do them for me. I always use manners with anyone I come into contact with; I’m intelligent so I don’t *not* act intelligent; same with regard to confidence. I don’t do these things because they’re *not* repulsive; I do them because that’s who I am and how I was brought up.
and I would want to take the ‘magic’ away because it causes millions of people to be confused and get hurt, through misrepresentation of the truth. One’s hopes are raised and crushed through ill belief. You are entitled to believe any crap you choose to, but please don’t poison other people’s minds with unsubstantiated fairy-tale bullsh!t.
There’s a huge difference between taking magic away and being realistic…those who get hurt generally do so because they don’t know what they really want; they don’t look at things realistically; they don’t hear/see things and believe them until it’s too late; or they make incorrect assumptions – much as you have about me. Being unrealistic isn’t a good thing; neither is being too analytical, stuck in one’s ways. And believeing everything you read in a science books ;) I'd love to hear your views in 20-30 years after you've gotten a lot more actual experience in life and love...many times that teaches one more than anything else ;) | |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/13/2007 9:39:35 AM | Msg: 30 (Dreamerxoxoxo)
"That's right. Mutual chemistry felt by two people and cannot be manufactured"
Read through all the other 'Chemistry' threads, there are plenty of guys talking about having chemistry with no mention of reciprocation. If it’s understandable (Which it is), then it can be manufactured where change in behaviour or physical presence is humanly possible.
"hmmm.... is this thread being hijacked?"
No, read the subtitles. We are still sharing our thoughts on chemistry, just seems to be a debate on whether it's caused by scientifically understandable facts, unconformable supernatural bullcrap, or a mixture of the two, the latter possibly causes some philosophical conflict, but lets not discuss that here.
Msg: 31 ( prolibertate)
"I’ve never done those things for someone else; I do them for me"
Invalid, as you're assuming "for myself" to be a self motivating fundamental, when in fact these things have their origins in attraction and human social relationships. Put simply you wouldn't do them for you, if those things made you ugly or socially unwanted by absolutely everyone. Hell I already predicted your answer - quote from my previous post, "Would you bother doing those things if they were repulsive to every human being?". So you only "Do it for myself" because you get self-esteem/self respect from the validation that you will receive from others. If you can’t see this then you are truly blind to the motives behind your feelings.
And believeing everything you read in a science books
First of all it’s not just science books which I draw my informtion from. The knowledge I have is easily matched up to direct evidence in my observations of the world around me, girlfriends, friend's, girlfriends, news, TV, Internet forums, studies, etc. There's information about relationships coming in from all over, and lets just say metaphorically that the jigsaw pieces of my views on attraction fit together very well, unlike the bullcrap information which the likes of yourself believe it, fits. All too often I have observed a phenomenon and THEN confirmed my suspicions by reading up the reasons behind it.
"because they don’t know what they really want;"
You obvious DON'T know what you really want; you've even assumed that it is at least partially magical and unknowable. Hypocrite!
I'd love to hear your views in 20-30 years after you've gotten a lot more actual experience
Drop the ‘experience’ line of argument. I find your use of my age insulting and petty. Intelligence isn’t just the capacity to understand it’s to speed at which one understands, the more intelligent the person, the less the amount of data he/she needs to establish a pattern/conclusion. Put simply? Clever people don’t necessarily have to wait until they’re 60 to wise up. | |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/13/2007 11:38:03 AM |
Invalid, as you're assuming "for myself" to be a self motivating fundamental, when in fact these things have their origins in attraction and human social relationships.
Incorrect...I don't assume anything ever, and I'm perfectly happy by myself; I do things that make me happy and some may bring a smile to others...things like common courtesy (which too many seem to have forgotten or never learned) is something I hold as a fundamental important aspect of my life and who I am...and if my being kind to someone makes them happy, great; but I'm simply being who I am and don’t expect anything form it...But there are also times when I can be pretty nasty if I want to be...and if someone doesn't like it, too bad; I don’t ever intentionally try to hurt someone, but I also don’t take any guff form people. And btw, I smoke...which has become socially unacceptable and looked upon as ugly by many...and that hasn't made me stop smoking.
You obvious DON'T know what you really want; you've even assumed that it is at least partially magical and unknowable. Hypocrite!
Pretty funny coming from a 22 year old who's still wet behind the ears, lol...you haven't lived or experienced enough to have a clue about much, IMO...and if you come back and say you lied on your profile about your age, as some stupid test, well then, I guess that simply would prove that one shouldn't believe anything you say. I’ve learned from my past, from mistakes that were made, and taken time to find out what’s truly important to me; too many people don’t bother to do this and they end up unhappy. And if I find magic in a sunset, a baby’s smile, or even just the fact of our existence, so what? If you’ve ever studied how we’re designed and what we can do, it’s amazing and frankly, pretty damn magical, IMO.
Clever people don’t necessarily have to wait until they’re 60 to wise up.
Very true...but there's a difference between being clever and being intelligent...and I'll take the latter every time. Being clever only means one can manipulate people or facts; one can reel off much information but yet aren't so coherent about the context of those things. I'd say that you strike me very much as the latter...but then that would be making an assumption, and I don't make assumptions. I know many people your age and younger who are very intelligent; I simply don't see you, based on your recent posts, as being in that group…simply my opinion. You may be clever, but I don't see that as being such a great attribute, especially in how you present it. Unfounded arrogance and a know-it-all attitude aren't very pretty.
| |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/13/2007 12:09:04 PM | Yes I am arrogant... when it comes to people using supernaturalisms in arguments, debates, or intelligent discussions. Your argument stands on a foundation that’s not really there, all we have to contrary is your faith. The way some people defy logic never ceases to amaze me. I have previously come to this conclusion though; belief in god/religion/supernatural manifests it’s self primarily in the form of emotion not thought. Emotions are illogical and therefore can’t be reasoned with, please no Mr Spoc jokes here, I’m being serious.
I'm not going waste much more time replying to your blurbs, you've not added anything of substance since your last post; I'll just leave you with the following:
Some of us have some interesting and intelligent points to bring to this discussion, however from now on I think the best thing that you can bring to our discussion... is silence.
Peace | |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/13/2007 12:28:59 PM | | ^^^^One of the main reasons I love these forums are for the many different people one can meet on here...and also for how it shows people's true natures...especially when that nature is one people should be aware of before making contact with that person ;) BTW, I also love how some people, usually the unfounded arrogant ones, tend to make statements that they won't reply anymore and blame it on someone else's posts...when it's really that they simply don't have the verbal or mental abilities to continue an interesting discussion. | |
|
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/13/2007 12:46:13 PM | There is evidence suggesting an inversely proportional relationship between religiosity and intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Everyone is welcome to their beliefs, but in terms of using them as proof, or evidence, or anything other than a justification for a personal preference, they fall down.
Pretty funny coming from a 22 year old who's still wet behind the ears, lol...you haven't lived or experienced enough to have a clue about much, IMO...and if you come back and say you lied on your profile about your age, as some stupid test, well then, I guess that simply would prove that one shouldn't believe anything you say. I’ve learned from my past, from mistakes that were made, and taken time to find out what’s truly important to me; too many people don’t bother to do this and they end up unhappy.
Dismissing any of someone's points based on their age is not a valid argument. Smart people may learn from their experiences. Smarter people will learn from those of others too. | |
|
| Chemistry! Would you share your thoughts about it?
Posted: 6/13/2007 2:23:52 PM | | It’s hard to explain, but for me, true relationship chemistry is an intense mutual connection on a physical, spiritual, intellectual and emotional level; as if both parties are in harmonious simpatico. You’re viewpoints, senses of humor, principles, thought processes, personalities, et al are extremely in sync with one another (you “get” each other). Chemistry is a resonating of souls. I do not believe it can be created over time. IMO, it’s either there, or it isn’t. | |
|
| Chemistry! Would you share your thoughts about it?
Posted: 6/13/2007 7:29:33 PM | Well said, F B... I totally agree with your thoughts on mutual chemistry. I think until okcupid experiences the mutual chemistry we're talking about, he just won't get it.
Read through all the other 'Chemistry' threads, there are plenty of guys talking about having chemistry with no mention of reciprocation. If it’s understandable (Which it is), then it can be manufactured where change in behaviour or physical presence is humanly possible.
Those guys talking about having chemistry with no mention of reciprocation the above quote is referring to aren't experiencing chemistry at all... it's more likely what they are experiencing is lust. The reason the elusive feeling we are talking about here is called chemistry is because it's a mixture of the intense feelings of connection coming from two separate souls.
Therefore, chemistry does not exist if it's one sided. I love how eloquently FB described chemistry as being a resonating of souls.....
Science is void of emotions/feelings/warmth/heart and soul. Perhaps that is the reason okcupid has no understanding of the uncontrollable real mutual chemistry that unexplainably and suddenly happens between two people. He has a very scientific personality and obviously hasn't yet had the experience of head-over-heels attraction. Some people never get to experience it, sadly enough. It's rare and quite elusive. But when it happens, the feeling is incredibly awesome.  | |
|
| |
| Chemistry, Science, and Supernaturalism
Posted: 6/13/2007 8:37:02 PM |
You're trying to tell me that attraction is partly caused by karma or other supernatural powers?
Well not exactly. All I am saying is that there is that "unknown" factor, among the other biological/social pre-determinants. Some may call this karma or some other supernatural power which actually may be proven by science one day. Just because it isn't yet observable phenomenon doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And you totally misinterpreted and discounted my view with the Yoda comment. However, related to this, you can tap into the "force" and make things happen - I've done it several times myself so I know it works. Science has to, and will catch up someday. | |
|
| Chemistry! Would you share your thoughts about it?
Posted: 6/17/2007 11:52:04 AM | Chemistry. Well, I think it is exactly that: chemicals. (For one, look how good people look at the end of the night at a bar, lol!.) But mostly homemade chemicals: what your own body starts to produce to help you with the bonding thingy. What triggers those, is I think, different for each of us, and may change over time. Visually created chemistry seems to be really powerful, and may bond a couple before they find out there's zip actual compatibility. There's also intellectual and spiritual chemistry, as well as bodily chemistry (this one generated, generally, whilst making love with someone you already love).
When I was a young thang, I almost always went with the visual. Got me into some stupid situations, and now I really try to stay away from it, even if it means clubbing myself over the head while taking a cold shower. . . When I got to the point of letting my intellect find a match and create the chemistry, I started doing a good bit better with my mates. But it really wasn't until I let my soul make the choices that phenomenal things started to happen.
The first time, it produced an Until Death Do Us Part (which death did -- nothing else would have). This last time, it didn't. But the difference between these two relationships and any other one in my life still amazes me. Both were bright, passionate, and not ugly; but the thing the mattered (matters) most is that they had opened their spiritual lives. There any resemblance ends. Life paths very different. Didn't matter. Doesn't matter. And this is what I'm holding out for.
And a final observation: it's very much easier to make the man your soul falls in love with beautiful to your eyes than it is to make a man your eyes fall in love with beautiful to your soul and mind.
 | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
