Premise #1.)
The laws of physics are nothing more than mankind's feeble attempt to describe what can't be explained.

Premise #2.)
#1.) is fact.

Conclusion
Therefore, the laws of physics are a feeble attempt to describe what can't be explained, and this is proven by the laws of physics.




To me, this looks like self-contradictory nonsense...

#1.) clearly attributes a value of incompetence to the laws of physics. #2.) is a gratuitous insertion which adds no value to the argument. #3.) uses what is being denied in #1.) and #2.) and in doing so proves them both wrong.







That all depends upon exactly what constitutes knowledge.



A joke? Really now. Now, I must wonder exactly what constitutes "a joke"??? There is much more evidence and therefore credence and reliability to the idea of a physical universe than to any idea of spirit. That is not a denial of either one, just stating a fact. Moreover, it should focus upon exactly what grounds either claim. In other words why that is a fact.



Therefore ideas exist. And???



Why is that a problem?



This is false, semantics are not capable of being circular - in and of itself. There is great value in language. This sounds like a feeble attempt to deny the usefulness of science and language both...



I know what is not the Tao...

Ahem.

It is true that physical laws are a real and necessary part of the process of "love". Physical laws alone won't explain the phenomenon, however.

Consider a carbon atom, a physical entity well defined, and observe it approach another carbon atom. The first carbon atom is part of a male organism, the second carbon atom is part of a female organism.

Carbon atom 1 approaches carbon atom 2 because the system built around CA1 is attracted to the system built around CA2.

There is a third carbon atom, close physically to CA1, at the outset; it is part of a western omelette on the plate of the system around CA1.

Now. If it was SHEERLY only physical laws that made CA1 approach CA2, and there was no emotional law or biological law involved, then it is reasonable to assume that CA3 would have also moved toward CA2, since the attraction is only based on physical laws. But CA3 did not move. Therefore there were more players, more forces, more motivators in the phenomenon than just physical laws. Some of the other motivators were biological, and one of them was what we call "love".

Therefore we can state safely that "love" is in the jurisdiction of physics, but "love" is also in the jurisditcion of other forces and motivators, and the combined forces of the motivators and their resultant movements can NOT be explained by physical laws alone, although the movement is always compliant with physical laws.

Pretty sure that Love is undefinable. It is different for different people. It lacks a single definition.

FUNCHES:

I AGREE ABSOLUTELY...
* * * one of my boyfriends has such a long "stimli", it sends electrical impules throughout my entire body... And it doesn't bother me which jurisdiction of the laws of physics does it fall under -- I enjoy it in any jurisdiction!

It's got a quite logical and clear explanation that is plain (but not that simple). To present it here would be difficult, due to length. I wrote an article on that, which is in my book. The theory I present in the book presupposes the evolutionary theory (or fact).

There is a whole bunch of human traits, actually all of them, that can be explained using the evolution theory. Even such things as morality, art, and prejudice. Idealism, idiotism. Everything. Except a few. That we don't have enough knowledge to explain yet, such as the love of music or the love of a son he feels for his mother 'till she dies. But this is a biassed, wishful thinking on my part that the love of music and mother can be explained with e. theory. Maybe they can't and there is a whole other issue out there (and I don't speak of Drakonian aliens or Transylvanian Frankensteins) that we haven't discovered yet. But it is hard to say what it is we don't know exactly, before we know that thing, isn't it.

Jane, that was priceless. Well done!

...much obliged, darling!

Love is always a self-fulling and self-serving concept. Whatever one does 'out of love' fulfills one's own idea of what should be done 'out of love'.

Spinoza had that one right as well.

Everything else everyone does also is.

It's called the "pleasure principle".

For instance, it's good to give up sex for a lifetime when you have ideals about god and how to live life as a good person.

Or some people go hungry and die of hunger to make sure their grandchildren will have enough to eat and survive. Hunger death is not pleasant, but an ideal like that makes it more pleasant than the alternative.

Or some units go through a long series of days and maybe even years of extreme pain and humiliation to save their loved ones or simply their soldier-comrades or their nation. This gives them more pleasure than the stoppage of extreme pain, despite not liking pain at all, it hurts them, and they don't find any inherent pleasure in pain. But the price they pay with that pain for the pleasure of saving their loved ones is a positive NPV in suffering/pleasure..

Wux....the question posed to Abracadabra was to name something that took place in his life that wasn't under the jurisdiction of the laws of physics...if you say that love is in the jursidiction of the laws of physics but yet can not name the other factors either way this would still mean that the laws of physics are part of that which influence the hallucination that people call love and that Abracadabra should come up with something else that takes place in his life that has nothing to do with the laws of physics

funches:

... in fact, he's quite a devil -- it's always up!!!

perhaps that's the problem

perhaps it may be the problem... Although I haven't heard any of the ladies complain!!!

I read you.

What about dreams? And hallucinations? They have nothing to do with the physical laws of the universe.

If you say they have to do with brain function, I agree, but I reply that perhaps not every function of the brain is based on physical laws or even employ physical laws or even need physical laws for the said function.

I say that with hesitation, but the plain truth is that we have no clue how the brain works. We know it works; but we are not anywhere near to KNOWING how it works.

Of course not. It's a problem for the Kleenex population, which is threatened by now. Threatened, bullied, humiliated, dirtied and intimidated.

that would mean that you follow him around 24/7 and have him and his abode bugged ...sounds like you may have the problem

Wux...we do know that the brain needs air and nourishment to function...and air and nourishment falls under the jurisdiction of the laws of physics ...

As Mr. Spock (Star Treck) says: THAT'S MOST ILLOGICAL!!!
How could you derive B from A is beyond me!

After all, I referred to the ladieS (plural)!!! ......sounds like you may have the problem with grammar (or logic)!

Mr. Spock would not go around telling others about Captain Kirk"s sex romps unless he stuck a tri-corder to kirk's worm hole and recorder Kirk's every move .....which apparently you must have done to Abracadabra to even say the things you been saying ...so now that we discover that you're probably his stalker can we get back on topic

Cognitive science is moving very rapidly with new technologies. These statements are being shredded in the scientific community right now.

The problem is its a big task, with multiple fields of research reliant on each other to move forward.

I think its premature to think we will have all the answers in less then 20 years. After all we have only had the technology to even really begin in earnest in the last 10.

Statements that science isn't explaining anything anymore are made look all the more foolish when held up against the progress in cognitive science in the last year.