Quote:
Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick  Jhuber there seems to be some ofyour post missingnwhat I recieved by email was a
longer text than this,anyway you said about how far the emotions went down the line,
I recall an experiment made around 25 years ago,where a plant was wired up to a
polygraph-lie-dectector,then a person with sissors in their hand looked at the plant
and thought about cutting it up,with this the reading on the polygraph went "haywire"
and it was deduced that the plant was experiencing "fear" which of course is emotion? |
I had edited that part of my post out because I wanted to think about it further. In it I questioned the range that emotion theory has. I'm trying to defend it as a theory of everything. If animals have them then they are not exclusive to humans. Therefore they are natural. I haven't heard about the plant experiment and am skeptical about it since plants can't sense by sight. However, they are subjects and they do relate with each other so in this way they do conform with emotion theory. (Birds, bees, flowers and trees) So, where do you draw the line with the range of emotion theory? Does it apply to non-living matter? You might not understand this but I'll post a correlation here and you can think about it.
1stC) Bonding
2ndC) Transmutation
3rdC) Thermal Energy
Leverage) Radioactivity and Light
Contentment) Inertia
Also, gravity is analagous to extrinsic combination and charge is analagous to intrinsic combination.
This is how the universe makes sense to me.
- John