[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
It’s like trying to measure how much your love affects your wife or girl friend. If you take an event and try to ascertain how much your love would alter the outcome of that event that involves wife/gf could you measure that? Of course you cannot.
This study is specifically about the health of patients who were prayed for. Much research has been done on the relative health of married women (presumably in love) vs their single peers. Seems to me you can you measure how much love alters the outcome.
How do you they were loved? What is the measuring stick for that?
There are many ways. Ask their husbands, ask their friends about their husbands, give their husbands brain scans while you show them pictures of their wives, or measure their seretonin and dopamin responses while their wife talks about the weather, ect ect. Check these methods against each other and use a huge sample size and this should be a pretty easy study to design.
Oh brother, really? Give 'em brain scans? That might work on newly weds, but love is a lot more than a good feeling. Still, can increase dopamine levels equal love? So, if you walked up to me and shook my hand and your dopamine levels happened to jump, does that mean you love me? I guess coke heads are just a bunch of lovers then because there neurotransmitter levels jump like hell when they toot.
That’s a real perty straw man you’ve got there.
That’s not a strawman. I am attacking the premise that measurable neurotransmitter behavior can be link to emotion or feeling reliably. That is a huge problem for your presented scenario.
It is a straw man in that you completely ignored most of the content of my post, as well as the context I mention dopamine. If you’re willing to actually address what I posted, I’ll continue debating, but you’re currently way off course.
That’s not what strawman is, btw. The bottom line is this, you first have to define what love is before you could measure, do you not? How can you measure something that, of the many facets it has, many are not physically tangible…You aren’t seriously going to argue that “love” is merely a series of electo-chemical reations are you? You can’t generate love in a petrie dish.
[/quote]
Love is just an electro-chemical reaction. As such, you could put it in a petri dish. But lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say you’re right, anything you can’t put in a petri dish is magical and outside the purview of science. You can’t put a computer program in a petri dish either, is it magical too?