One word proof for god

wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
One word proof for god

Orgasm.

 

 

 

OK. So I'm being tongue in cheek and I'm an attention whore.

 

Seriously. Why does an orgasm feel good and a poke in the eye hurt like hell. What is it that makes one biochemical process in the brain feel "good" while another feel "bad". They both use brain cells, neurotransmitters, hormones and all that. Sure, the exact configuration of cells and particular chemicals and receptors involved are different. But that's just chemicals. What makes the underlying process become a good feeling or a painful one?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The way in which the

The way in which the neurons fire is what will determine the perceptive feeling of pain/pleasure. The CNS and brain have 9,000 differently differentiated neurons, and, not only that, neurons all fire in different ways to produce different mental states depending on the stimulus from the internal/external world.

A poke in the eye hurts like hell because the stimulus (pressure and force on the receptor neurons, which, in the eye, are highly sensitive and clustered) activates the pain mechanism.

The actual reason that an orgasm feels very nice is endorphin, but also because the stimulus on the neurons in this case causes them to fire in a very different way.

Would you like me to go into the precise chemical detail of the different ways neurons fire when activated by certain stimuli, producing certain perceptions? Please say no.That was a rhetorical question.  

A person with CIPA would have no idea what we are talking about.  

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
No. Details not required.

No. Details not required. But you gave me the empirical differences. I know those exist. But how the heck does the perception of pain or pleasure emerge from this. Maybe I'm just rephrasing the age old question "what is the mind?" What made one set of processes evolve into a perception of pain and another into a perception of pleasure?

 

Meh. Just a weird question. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: The

deludedgod wrote:

The actual reason that an orgasm feels very nice is endorphin, but also because the stimulus on the neurons in this case causes them to fire in a very different way.

 

I would love to lead a study on orgasms.

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

The actual reason that an orgasm feels very nice is endorphin, but also because the stimulus on the neurons in this case causes them to fire in a very different way.

I would love to lead a study on orgasms.

 

 

As an experimenter or a test subject? It would be hard to do a double-blind. Ouch! (poke in the eye). Aaaahhh! (Orgasm).  What about the placebo affect.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Yes, of course. You are

Yes, of course. You are asking the question of what is the difference beween what is being percieved and what is percieving. Down to the molecular level, I can explain how vision works. I can explain about photon/electron transduction, rods and cones, wavelengths and frequencies and how the optic nerve converts photonic light into electrical information and singal transduction etc, but it still doesn't explain what is doing the seeing. An argument for this is sometimes called homunculus, and one glance at it tells anyone how poor it is (wiki it)

Actually, that is a bad example, since I can tell you precisely what is doing the seeing. it is controlled by grid neurons which array a lattice-like projection of external reality, dividing it into grid squares, such that grid neurons corresponding to said squares fire when movement is detected in said squares. Obviously, your brain does not project this onto your vision, as that would be extremely annoying.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: No.

wavefreak wrote:

No. Details not required. But you gave me the empirical differences. I know those exist. But how the heck does the perception of pain or pleasure emerge from this. Maybe I'm just rephrasing the age old question "what is the mind?" What made one set of processes evolve into a perception of pain and another into a perception of pleasure?

Meh. Just a weird question.

Let me give you the official non-biologist answer: evolution.

Animals evolved pain receptors because they helped keep them alive: if being eaten didn't feel bad, odds are fewer of those animals would survive to reproduce.

As to why it's "pain" I think the sensation "pain" is how we interpret our nervous system's "QUIT DOING THAT!" signal. Gets your attention, doesn't it?

The difference between pain and pleasure is that one is a positive reinforcement (ooh, that feels good; let's do it again!) and the other is a combination of a punisher (gah, I don't like it when I feel like this) and negative reinforcement (...and I don't want to have that feeling again EVER).

Intermittent positive reinforcement (sometimes you get a cookie, sometimes you don't...but you might next time!) is just about the most effective way to condition a behaviour into an animal. Negative reinforcement is less effective (takes more conditioning), but (IIRC) the conditioned effects are longer lasting.

Is that long-winded enough and sufficiently poorly-worded for you?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I guess it really is a wtf

I guess it really is a wtf is the mind question, not a how/why did it evolve. But you made sense.


Krehlic
Krehlic's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-29
User is offlineOffline
Evolution: Painful orgasm =

Evolution: Painful orgasm = no babies.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Krehlic wrote: Evolution:

Krehlic wrote:
Evolution: Painful orgasm = no babies.

And then came about STD's. 


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: OK. So

wavefreak wrote:

OK. So I'm being tongue in cheek and I'm an attention whore.

You're being tounge-in-where? 

-Triften 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Like everyone else said,

Like everyone else said, the orgasm could have come about without a god guiding its development, just like all the other one-word proofs for God:

Vodka, Tequila, Rum, Beer, Salvia, Pot, Peyote... the list goes on and on.


AnonHateMachine
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Let me

wavefreak wrote:

Let me give you the official non-biologist answer: evolution.

Animals evolved pain receptors because they helped keep them alive: if being eaten didn't feel bad, odds are fewer of those animals would survive to reproduce.

As to why it's "pain" I think the sensation "pain" is how we interpret our nervous system's "QUIT DOING THAT!" signal. Gets your attention, doesn't it?

The difference between pain and pleasure is that one is a positive reinforcement (ooh, that feels good; let's do it again!) and the other is a combination of a punisher (gah, I don't like it when I feel like this) and negative reinforcement (...and I don't want to have that feeling again EVER).

Intermittent positive reinforcement (sometimes you get a cookie, sometimes you don't...but you might next time!) is just about the most effective way to condition a behaviour into an animal. Negative reinforcement is less effective (takes more conditioning), but (IIRC) the conditioned effects are longer lasting.

Is that long-winded enough and sufficiently poorly-worded for you?

 

But besides humans, I can't think of one animal off the top of my head that has orgasms. I've heard things like there are only a handful of nimals in the entire world that have them.

And what about organisms that don't use sexual reproduction? They obviouly don't have the dopamine shooting to their brains to "reward" their sexual reproduction.

I personally don't see orgasms as any sort of evidence for God. I can get dopamine anywhere. Thing is, my right hand is always with me, and it's free. It's the cheap, effective way to get my daily supply of dopamine. You could get the same thing with drugs, alcohol, video games, or punching someone in the face. Since none of those things prove God's existence, I don't know why orgasms do.

Nothing human disgusts me.