Craer

In this case my word choice was so as to avoid the use of the word 'feeling' and instead use its very definition emotion.

Oxford said: Feeling of Affection

Feeling - an emotional state or reaction

Affection - a gentle feeling of fondness or liking

I said: Emotional State of Attraction

Emotional - of or relating to a person's emotions

State - the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time

Attraction - the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something.

My attempts to clarify that you refuse to acknowledge is not my problem.

No, I've not claimed to have a definition of love. There is no onus on me to define it. You, however, have put forth a definition that was vague and mostly nonsense. You have since evaded more than 4 requests to clarify your meaning.

Note: You have also now evaded the new question to you to support your assertion that I was using a logical fallacy somewhere, to share which fallacy was used, and in what post.

It is the logical fallacy of the Red Herring

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Topic A being the topic stated by the OP

Topic B being this whole clarification of my definition which can be found in any dictionary.

Some of this could also be seen as the Straw Man Fallacy

Can we now return to the OP's question of if scientists believe in love?

The definition you claim I came up with is the exact same thing as the Oxford definition.

I used different words yes certainly.

English has multiple ways of saying the same things using distinctly different words.

As far as unaddressed questions are concerned, would you care to define love so we can move on?

As for my attempts to clarify in the face of your stonewalling tactics I have no answer other then previously stated.

Anyone care to take a shot at why it's ethically important to use proper etiquette?

"an emotional state of attraction" is a reference to the definition of love as stated by Daedalus via the Oxford Dictionary.

If you would like to define love for us please do.

The deletion was due largely to the fact that I realized I was defending myself to someone using logical fallacy as the basis for part of their argument.

Love will need to be defined in an acceptable manner for all parties before this discussion can progress.

Is the Oxford definition acceptable?

How about as defined by the Dalai Lama, "Love is the absence of judgment".

Is emotion no longer an acceptable synonym for 'feeling'?

The moderators try John.

This topic is more in regards to proper Etiquette as defined in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

And the ways "trolls" apply logical fallacies in order to discredit an individual.

Emotional attraction is still a bit ambiguous certainly, but then so is 'Love"

PET gives a measurement to various emotions.

An 'emotion' triggers activity in the brain.

Neutral emotion was distinguishable in the prefrontal cortex, thalamus, hypothalamus and midbrain.

Unpleasant emotion in areas such as bilateral occipito-temporal cortex, cerebellum, left parahippocampal gyrus, hippocampus, and amygdala.

Pleasant was isolated from nuetral but not from unpleasant in the left caudate nucleus.

Ref: Neuroanatomical correlates of pleasant and unpleasant emotion 1997,

http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/pubs/1997/neuroanat_pleasant_unpleasant.pdf

...

Your definition seems both incomplete AND to rely on vague amorphous terms that ultimately take us farther from a clearer understanding than closer to one. Can you define more plainly what you mean by "an emotional state of attraction" and perhaps how it might be measured?

This subject is not a mathematical one until measurements are found for things we can't yet measure.

You are also suggesting psychology has no validity?

Love, is an emotional state of attraction.

Science does separate emotion(s) from mathematical certainty.

This by no means stops emotion(s) from existing within mathematics.

Or math existing within emotion(s) for that matter.

I would consider it a linguistic operation, within the first dimension you have a language similar to binary all on or off positions.

As you progress through the other dimensions the first language is conjugated or paraphrased into a simple( r) string with (more)complex implications.

@ Stetson I seem to have run out of up-votes for the day.

Poverty is an equation of the monetary system which places value on life based off of superfluous factors amidst realist factors. To curb it would change everything we know.

Do you think an additional factor could increase or affect this acetate uptake?

 

 

Well in my story the original machines setup and infrastructure and then grow the biological organisms that designed them and set them up in the cities they built. eventually the ones that just design and build themselves stop growing the biological organisms and become independant machine organisms...

What would be the differential quality between the biological and the mechanical in this scenario? Or is that the point?

What reaction does the liquid have as it cools back to room temperature?

I'm not very familiar with your local hardware stores.

You could start with a pressure chamber(pressurized storage tank)

This chamber would need to be pressurized above the storage pressure of the individual gasses, to a pressure that would cause solidification.

Unless controlled this may only result in a mass of SWNTs that don't resemble any useful form.

To generate great movie plots. Such as "The squishing of disgusting bipeds". And of course "The Squishing II- there are more of them underground"

LMFAO

But why does any invasion occure

Natural Resources(for this they would be better off stripping our solar system)

Cheap labor(as stated autonomous labor is less likely to be problematic)

No reason at all

Superiority complex(they think they can 'civilize' us)

Survival(they need to survive if they think they can co-exist or not)

Could these cyclic changes be on an atomic level?

If so what could produce them?

Or even on a sub-atomic or quantum level.

Ferromagnetic objects are in a continuous state of atomic change when subjected to external magnetic influence which is prevalent in the known universe.

In my personal opinion(opinions exist get over it)

Most of the people to post in this thread are in agreement.

One should always try to keep the discussion about ideas/claims/assertions made in a given thread rather than focus on the poster.

Trying to remain civil is important, but it can be difficult with crackpots and cranks as one is tempted to just call them out. I don't like to do it, but sometimes I cannot see a better option. In particular, I am worried that less aware members here may take the wacky ideas sometimes presented here as being real cutting edge science.

This is why the ideas need challenging rather then the authors.

I think it can be difficult to tell sometimes. Some posters on here are just unwilling to change their opinions when faced with pertinent questions and/or evidence to the contrary. At some point this feels more like a troll than someone who is here with the intention of a meaningful exchange.

I have questioned myself on this very thing to be sure. In the end it is up to all of the participants not just me.

The ethics of trolling, remember? This current line is starting to swirl in circles, headed down the pipes.

The ethics of proper word choice within a scientific forum, so as to encourage new ideas, discourage bad ideas, and prevent abuses to an individual.

A proper exploration of ethics yes?

Perhaps the thread title here is more accurately seen as a statement of the OPs central intent.

Why do you feel this way?

The title of this topic is most certainly a statement of central intent.

To define the central intent:

Trolling - a word used to describe bigotry within a negative mythological context(as trolls were hardly a good thing).

Its unethical to take a misunderstanding of vernacular and from there proceed to attack the individual rather then address the idea(s) or the misunderstanding.

Discuss?

By an "attack" on the individual I am speaking of

Debasement

Implications of being lesser in any way shape or form

Harrassment

Hatred

Veiled accusations

Accusations

Basically addressing the individual rather then the idea or word clarification.

P.S. I would be a lying fool if I claimed this was something I've never struggled with as a perpetrator or victim.

I think you are confusing an attack on an idea with an attack on your person. The first is allowed and expected here, the second is against the rules.

 

As far as terminology goes, most of the time you can head over to Wikipedia and research it there.

Just to clarify for you, the two are very distinguishable.

We are on the same page with a certain level of misunderstanding.