Can you link to the peer reviewed science source that discusses that?
Marijuana and Religion
New Age United
Well-Known Member
No it just my own observation and logical conclusion
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
You said all energy has mass, what is the mass of a photon?
hillbill
Well-Known Member
I really question the voracity of your supposed logic.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
Ya good point, well I would still say that emotions have mass, you can feel them moving through the body.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
Then don't just say you question it question it.
I did and you came back with a faith based argument you are unable to prove. But that's the entire point of religion.
Emotions are chemicals released in our neural synapses. Hence why SSRI's and SNRI's assist with depression.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
It wasn't an argument. Yes I agree 90% of the human body is chemicals and those chemicals produce different energies but are intrinsically connected and form the life that animates the human being, the soul.
Please produce science, preferably in peer reviewed journals, that demonstrate a soul animates our biological organism. Until then I'm sticking with formal science and accepted definitions.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument
Definition of argument
1a: the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing : ARGUMENTATION
b: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view a defense attorney's closing argument
New Age United
Well-Known Member
If you are going to discuss science and philosophy then you should use formal arguments, a premise and a conclusion, a statement is not an argument. But what I am talking about is not strictly physical it is metaphysics and physics combined, so I am using philosophy to describe as best I can my own beliefs and opinions, I am not stating anything as fact, I always feel like saying strictly my opinion before I say anything but I dont want to annoy myself.
Sorry you can't shift the burden of proof from your claims to me. Essentially you are falling afoul of non-overlapping magisteria.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
When I read your ... statement, the crux of it was a feeling. Feelings are not admitted to physics or metaphysics or to any thought structure that attempts to be objective.
I second c2g’s request: please post some published and objective support for your assertion that you incorrectly argue isn’t an argument. “Because I said so” does not qualify.
The burden of proving your claim (specifically, that soul is energy and has mass) remains yours. Physicists have precisely defined energy and measure it in units like the joule and the electron volt. Energy is detectable and measurable by inanimate instruments. Calling feelings and other entirely subjective psychic phenomena “energy” steals the legitimacy of the physics of energy, which is why I despise the use of the term by “spiritually inclined” people.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
How exactly did I shift the burden of proof I don't see that there. Yes cannabineer energy is purely a physical thing but the brain contains many different form and frequencies of energy which form the subjective human experience, all things are energy, forms, even thoughts and emotions. And you can measure thoughts and emotions can't you?
Edit: I think there may be a misunderstanding, I was simply saying that my earlier statement "no it is just my own observation and logical conclusion " was not an argument.
And no an assertion is not an argument
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Tell me on which instrument and using which units you propose to measure emotions. They are the definition of subjective in my experience, which we cannot sense and thus measure. We define energy as a physical quantity that can be detected and measured with the right machinery.
I see your equating feelings with measurable energy as unsupportable. I am willing to hear a compelling argument otherwise, but so far I have not encountered one without a subjective component necessary for its development.
I think Thomas Aquinas stated the definition of non-overlapping magisteria succinctly.
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
-Thomas Aquinas
In other words you and I use different scales. Anyway no offense was intended. I know religion is a touchy subject so I tend to stay away from it.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
In my academic circles, any assertion was an argument.
It is important for me to say clearly that the common definition of “argument” with its negative connotation of conflict does not apply here. In philosophical circles, the non-pejorative sense (assertion, thesis, statement) is the one I am using here.
In grad school, a basic skill was to gut the other person’s argument without impinging on that person’s dignity. I may not be entirely successful here, so let me say I am not seeking to attack you on any way.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
Yes there is subjectivity in what I am saying, spirituality has a lot to do with you, the subject, there is no objective evidence only you yourself can understand what I am saying, now whether my own experience is relatable to yours I can not gaurantee.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I’m good with that.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
Very good quote, and I don't put any importance or seriousness on anyone's opinion not even my own, so don't worry about offending me.