'Love is magical' still holds valid??

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

200467

Suspended

Posted: 14 years ago

#41

Originally posted by: Emptiness
who knows?.. i doubt there'll ever be a reductionist theory that fully explains human emotion, we are more than just the sum of interacting components.

True that but try telling that to K. He refuses to rise above the quark😆

Quote

576345

Suspended

Posted: 14 years ago

#42

Originally posted by: Emptiness
who knows?.. i doubt there'll ever be a reductionist theory that fully explains human emotion, we are more than just the sum of interacting components.

I didn't want to do this here but you left me no choice.

Let's say I denote you as X. You say you are more than X; I ask you how much more. You don't know by how much so we will denote what we don't know about you as Y.

So originally I thought of you as X.

It turns out you are X + Y.

Big deal.

You are still X + Y and not something more than X + Y.

So, if X + Y could be denoted by Z, instead of allowing me to call you as X, you are telling me that I should have called you as Z. Not a problem.