'Love is magical' still holds valid?? - Page 5

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.

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.