How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[devolved]

questions and observations, we said that about a zillion times and you still don't hear...as previously stated, the scientific method is not perfect when it comes to a belief, however, it is the closest thing we have to a way to know if our belief is truth or delusion and so we apply it to the situation. In the scientific method on something like this, the closest we can come is observations and questions that will lead us to truth...I have openly and honestly and vocally stated that multiple times now.

And I keep telling you that merely questioning and observing isn't enough. That would be the methodology of quantitative research, in which you merely disclose what people claim and quantify it.

When you attempt to link effects and causes, you have to justify your experimental set-up or research set up and describe methodology that would warrant certain conclusions. You would have to describe it with certain specificity of application as to how you get to derive causal factors from behavior your observe.

Again, you have not gone into specifics as to how. You merely say "I can tell by asking questions".

Perhaps you will address it below. I'm trying to answer progressively point by point.

actually this is another where you get it wrong...since we are only looking for (in the example given not in the totality of belief, duh) only things that would testify to the existence of a relationship with God, we would want to know if there is evidence of a relationship with God before looking for other possibilities. The method of determining whether someone is in a relationship with anyone or not involves some well placed questions, as I said. That is how we would determine relationship with most people. We could check records and such, but again that involves some questioning....and exploration into claims etc. That would be how we would know if there is a common denominator of relationship...but it is also how we know (in the example given) if there is an element of the claim to the test.

Here's where it gets confusing, and you don't seem to understand why.

1) You are using a colloquial relationship language for something that's not a typical human relationship.
2) You are deriving data rather subjectively from claims and behavior of the people without setting up any specific parameters as to which we would determine and explore the claims of people.

How would you determine whether people OR YOURSELF doesn't merely have a relationship with a construct of their imagination, and that they merely keep consistent record of the qualities that they read in the book by reciting the answers you expect and behaving accordingly?

That's the question. What is your methodology that you employ to tell a difference. Your answer seems to be "I can tell by questions" I'm asking you for a specific method you use. Saying that "Oh, I can ask questions and tell" doesn't project reliability in a scientific setting. It's a subjective approach that would be laughed out of the room.

now, that being true, as per the example and the purposed simplicity of it for those that aren't following along very well, we would observe instances where we could see the things that are being claimed are evidence of God in an individuals life. When we see those things that are claimed and test to make sure that they fit the measurements for the claim, then we would test to see if there is evidence of relationship with God. That is how the scientific method works. How would we test, well, some well placed questions to start out with.....further observations would also be required in that the list of evidences rather long and all are needed to evidence relationship.

Yes, we can observe the claims. Yes we can see whether the behavior fits the claims.

Where you break down with your methodology is by injecting "test whether there's a relationship with God" without disclosing the method as to how you can tell a difference.

First of all, in order to have relationship with something... it must be real, right? How do you test the causality factor in a way that would differentiate it from mere psychology factors embedded into communication about any given claim.

For example, obviously telling someone that their child didn't really die and they would see them again would have a different psychological effects than telling them that they wouldn't.

Would the peace and the behavior that they experience could be taken into account when it comes to the veracity of the actual claims of the belief?

The obvious answer is no, and I hope you can agree.


So, which other method do you use to tell a difference?

1. we observe and test and observe and test (ok)

2. we test primarily by questions and looking for some key words and phrases that would tell us the difference between, I know X and I have heard of X (ok)

3. the example given was specific only for the claim that God is evidenced through X, Y, and Z....there are many other claims that we can and should test for, including but not limited to is there another cause for X, Y, and Z, but in the specific example that was not a claim we were testing, in fact, that would be the next test we would want to do. You know, after we see that there is a consistency, is there anything that could explain it further or separately from relationship with God. Both being very specific and narrow claims unlike the broad version you attribute to me.

Ok, great! I actually don't disagree with the above, but you don't disclose as to how you can tell the difference whether the causal factor is a "Relationship with God" and whether God is imaginary or real in either case.

What is your method for determining that?

 

[devolved]

I have no idea, I never once claimed, hinted or insinuated that we could distinguish some kind of psychological help from help by the HS or God....that is a claim that someone else made that you are attributing to me.

I didn't attribute that claim to you. I'm asking you how you can tell a difference. But at least we getting somewhere now

Ok. So you admitted that you can't.

Let's say we have 100 people all showing the same characteristic claims that are suppose to evidence God. Of those 100 samples, all show evidence of of relationship with God,

Ok. Let's pause right here. First of all, the way you seem to test relationship with God part is by observing how closely their behavior and answers match to Biblical narrative. That seems to be a part of your method (Correct me if I'm wrong)

But, what you essentially validate, if we merely strip all of the names like God and Bible.... and reduce everything to X Y Z for clarity....

Subject X makes a claim Y that we can validate that he follows and we observe behavior that's matching that claim. Subject X also claims to have relationship with entity Z that matches the description of the behavior in what Z described as would happen if they have relationship with Z.

How do you determine that Z is:

1) Real entity and not something imagined by the X as a psychological necessity to find a narrative tool
2) That Z is the actual cause behind the behavior, and not something X merely does and then ascribes the effect to the entity.

Your methodology merely finds a common denominator....

But the biggest rule of thumb in any research is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

2 show evidence of psychotic issues, 1 shows signs of social pressure and 6 show signs of indoctrination...what is the single common denominator? God, right? This is what we are talking about...the rest of this is all made up in your own head and not mine at all.

Again. How do you go from correlation to causation? Which method do you use to make that next step?

 

[Ronald]

That actually wasn't my point. A lot of retarded people have exceptional skills in something that highly intelligent people don't. The point being is that the structure of their brain allows them to excel in one particular area and do it better than everyone else.

This is where you are confused. We are more than just physical beings. The mind and the brain are not the same. The mind uses the brain to send messages to the body in order to function. When we die, our brains are dead, but our mind moves on. The soul is composed of mind, emotions, will, talents, love and hate -- all things that are not physical. You can't open up a brain and see thoughts, love, ideas, or as with some people who have photographic memory, an encyclopedia of information.

I've reviewed that and stand corrected, but the point still stands though. What would indicate that the dreams of this child where just that ... a Childhood dream in context of the stories that the child heard?

The book says visions, I'm pretty sure a vision can come to you while you are not sleeping. That said, God gives us messages and visions in dreams as well.

I actually have both. I didn't start with a secular view, and was a believing Christian for a majority of my life.

This reflects the kingdom of heaven as portrayed in the sower of the seeds. Some seed is scattered in shallow soil and when trials and tribulations come, not having deep roots, it withers and dies. Seed nourished properly in rich fertile soil grows deep roots. These are the Christians whose faith endures no matter what.

But the problem is that I don't see that fruit to be any different than that of a non-believer. Christians at large don't seem to be better or more caring people when it comes to the ideals you are describing.

God works on people who are on His list. He prepares them for that divine appointment. So, yes they seem to follow the principals of the Bible unbeknownst to them. My father was an atheist until his final view years of life. He had fruit. Patience is something I don't have, not like my Dad. There you go. Yes, some people seem more moral and ethical, yet don't know Jesus. But realistically, they do because his principals have been spread throughout the world for thousands of years and the societies that are most prosperous are the ones that exercise them. The U.S. is an example. It is the greatest nation ever and the fundamental beliefs of our founding fathers and citizens have been taken from the Bible. Notice how Israel has prospered. They are surrounded by dozens of Muslim nations that can't hold a candle to them. Look at Indian and China and Russia. This is evidence as well of Christ's influence and blessings on His own and abject poverty and corruption in areas of the world where He is not worshipped.

I've heard of dark and evil people who don't come to Jesus and change. What seems to be common is people changing and not Jesus. So, it seems to me that people can change, and there's seems to be nothing supernatural about it

Your perspective.

Again, I'm more interested in why you believe something as opposed to what you believe... which I'm very much familiar with.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus. God lives in me and I have experienced His love, He's answered my prayers and has guided me. When I became a Christian, an interesting series of events occurred, people came into my life and I knew this was orchestrated. When I realized it, I also knew He had my back for my entire life as well. My journey wasn't a series of random chances or decisions without a plan. I saw change in my life. Years prior to that I would be invited to church or someone would give me a tract and I would be negative --"No thank you very much." Rebellious, not wanting God in my life, I lived on my own throne, the director of my own destiny. When I came to Christ, that is when the power of God drew me to Himself, He revealed things to me, shed light and lifted the blinding veil over my spiritual eyes -- then I saw differently. I can go on and on about the experiences that can no way be explained as chance circumstances or luck but it would be 50 pages.

Secondly, you've ignored the points I was making. Life consists of non-life in a way that you would define life. The question is, at which point of that division would you get "non-life" as opposed to life? Life is a concept. It's not a being. It's a pattern we recognize and label it so based on some attributes.

Sure inanimate objects: stones, dirt, chemicals, etc. You are wrong again, as I already said: Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life ... He is the source of life.
As I said, there is much evidence in God's creation, but Jesus is God in the flesh and more evidence than anyone needs.
This is what you fail to see. It's all about Jesus, He is the creator.
"For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Col. 1:16, 17
Some translations say "consist" instead of hold together. What does this mean. All atoms in the universe are held together by His power. In Him all things consist. That requires Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresent.

1) Evolution isn't a science about Godless orginins of life. Majority of Christians on this planet actually think that God used evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact.

Half of Christians believe in Theistic Evolution - I know. I'm not one of them.
Micro-evolution is evident; things change within the organism.
Macro-evolution, chance from one species into another is not and no where to be found in the fossil record, just a lot of extinct species - no transitional forms. Even Darwin recognized this and that was his biggest concern.

Do you really think that if we find life on other planet today that Christians will stop believing? Not at all. They will merely say that it also was created by God and things will progress as usual.

Born again Christians will not lose their faith, it is the people that are on the fence that will go astray and fall away. Those are the people that have shallow soil and/or that it wasn't nourished properly - with the WORD.

So, we have three viable options:

1) I'm somehow unable to see or recognize the evidence, or I'm closed to it (which I try very hard not to do)
2) God doesn't want me to conclusively known about his existence, and thus it's hiding from me for unknown to me reasons and asking me to trust people who I find highly unreliable when it comes to evaluating how they live vs what they claim to know and believe
3) God doesn't exist... at least not in the form that Christian describe God to be

#1 is correct
#2 is wrong. God wants you to know, that's why He sent His Son, Jesus.
#3 is wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

the unfortunate truth is that when talking about God everyone brings it back to morality. But the God of the Bible is NOT about morality at all, rather He is about justice which is a totally different matter.

You see, morality is a social construct, as such it is fluid. For example, in some countries it is morally acceptable to sell a child so that you can feed the other children in the family....we see right now a culture where rape is part of their law, as is murder. Morality is fluid depending on the society.

By contrast, justice is NOT fluid, either you broke the law or you did not. End of story. Right now in our country we are seeing a battle over this concept. Does the law apply to everyone equally or not? Justice says, yes, the law applies equally to all.

If you don't believe me, here is a challenge for you. Look in scripture and find 1 verse that talks about morality and God...then look and see how many talk about God being just.....

Fantastic point! I'll add that it is just to forgive someone if they are truly sorry for breaking the law. Thus Gods justice does not conflict with his mercy and forgiveness.

 

[devolved]

and I have repeatedly shown you why we are limited in our use of scientific method when it comes to beliefs....so, you really want me to write and entire paper explaining everything and submit it on these boards, the sample you gave was how many pages long? Mine would have to be longer because it would have to include the limitations the method has when it comes to beliefs....

Actually, the method section is only one page long. It's far shorter than the amount that you have already wrote on this thread.

I'm asking you describe a method. I think we've made some progress, but I'd like to see how you answer the questions that remain.

 

[devolved]

By contrast, justice is NOT fluid, either you broke the law or you did not. End of story. Right now in our country we are seeing a battle over this concept. Does the law apply to everyone equally or not? Justice says, yes, the law applies equally to all.

If you don't believe me, here is a challenge for you. Look in scripture and find 1 verse that talks about morality and God...then look and see how many talk about God being just.....

You understand that a large chunk of what we'd call "essential morality" is what our laws are.

Legal system is a system of morality. Morality is merely a label for "desired behavioral standards"... which is what law is.

 

[razzelflabben]

And I keep telling you that merely questioning and observing isn't enough. That would be the methodology of quantitative research, in which you merely disclose what people claim and quantify it.

When you attempt to link effects and causes, you have to justify your experimental set-up or research set up and describe methodology that would warrant certain conclusions. You would have to describe it with certain specificity of application as to how you get to derive causal factors from behavior your observe.

Again, you have not gone into specifics as to how. You merely say "I can tell by asking questions".

Perhaps you will address it below. I'm trying to answer progressively point by point.

sure, okay...let's go with what you have said...I am wrong, you cannot apply the scientific method with the limitations it has to the topic because...ah...I don't know why, you said I already did show the method in it's limitations but that I didn't show the method used in it's limitations so the reason why what you said I already did can't be done is in your court....none the less, it can't be done because you say it can't be done....how cool is that...moving on. geesh...soooooo, even though you agree I am using the scientific method and do not argue that testing is the best way to know, I am somehow wrong...don't even care anymore, this whole discussion is tooo insane to even care anymore. You say exactly what I say, use different words then attack me for not understanding...get over it already, pretend you defeated something you already agreed happened and move on in the discussion, you have already wasted too much of my time trying to reinvent what I said...

Here's where it gets confusing, and you don't seem to understand why.

1) You are using a colloquial relationship language for something that's not a typical human relationship.
2) You are deriving data rather subjectively from claims and behavior of the people without setting up any specific parameters as to which we would determine and explore the claims of people.

well, since we are talking belief, you know when I repeatedly said their were limits, that is it is not a perfect match but you claim I didn't say that and I repeated myself only to have you assure me I didn't say what I did and don't believe what I do, I did give some measures and talked about the limits and so no, this isn't accurate against what I said, but as I said before, not worth the time trying to get you to understand what I am saying.

How would you determine whether people OR YOURSELF doesn't merely have a relationship with a construct of their imagination, and that they merely keep consistent record of the qualities that they read in the book by reciting the answers you expect and behaving accordingly?

see previous discussions where we talked about this in depth, summary version .1. since it is a believe we cannot know for sure, aka not an absolute....2. we test to see if the evidence of relationship is present....that is as much time as I will waste repeating myself. You seriously act like you have some warped delusion of what you want me to say and if I don't say what you want, you will just through a fit....sorry, but that is exactly how your posts are coming across at this point. You say everything I have already said, use different words and that somehow makes me wrong and you right...cool, I'm not so proud I can't let you pretend. Oh and this is also where the analogy of knowing Obama verses knowing who he is came into the discussion as well as challenge of the questions which no one including you were willing to take...you know, so you could prove me wrong. It's funny how when you are given a challenge to prove me wrong you can't muster the energy but you can reinvent what I said all day long and use that to "prove me wrong" even though it is what I have repeatedly said myself.

That's the question. What is your methodology that you employ to tell a difference. Your answer seems to be "I can tell by questions" I'm asking you for a specific method you use. Saying that "Oh, I can ask questions and tell" doesn't project reliability in a scientific setting. It's a subjective approach that would be laughed out of the room.

so, you want an entire essay on key words and phrases we would look for to know the difference between a relationship and knowledge of someone....hum, let me shorten this and see if there is a paper on the web.....never mind, I'm letting you feel like you have something on me, look it up yourself, there are lots of ways we know.

Yes, we can observe the claims. Yes we can see whether the behavior fits the claims.

Where you break down with your methodology is by injecting "test whether there's a relationship with God" without disclosing the method as to how you can tell a difference.

see above...been over it so many times I simply don't have the heart to tell you how big a problem you are making yourself into. I mean, if you had something to offer that we haven't already been through a million times, I would be all down with it, that is why after all I come to these boards, but you are wasting too much of my time with the same things I have repeatedly said and you can't "hear" for me to waste my time any further. If you figure out some real challenge that we haven't already been over, make sure to let me know, I'll be here with bells on.

First of all, in order to have relationship with something... it must be real, right? How do you test the causality factor in a way that would differentiate it from mere psychology factors embedded into communication about any given claim.

already went over this in detail, not doing it again if you can't hear it the first 30 or so times. Seriously I am that done with all of this "repeat yourself so I can say you didn't address it and you can repeat yourself so I can claim you didn't ...." non sense. Let me know when you are ready for some real discussion and debate, it is after all what I expect to happen on a thread like this....

For example, obviously telling someone that their child didn't really die and they would see them again would have a different psychological effects than telling them that they wouldn't.

Would the peace and the behavior that they experience could be taken into account when it comes to the veracity of the actual claims of the belief?

sure, but then again, we talked about that to as well as how those words would not be as comforting as you think if it is only a teaching...but hey, just because we talked about this already doesn't mean we talked about it huh?

The obvious answer is no, and I hope you can agree.


So, which other method do you use to tell a difference?

huh? Where did you get some idea of only one question or possible reason? I'm so confused as to what you even want to claim I said, maybe because you keep telling me I believe and say things I don't...you will have to fill me in on what you want me to say before I can even try to imagine what to respond....

Ok, great! I actually don't disagree with the above, but you don't disclose as to how you can tell the difference whether the causal factor is a "Relationship with God" and whether God is imaginary or real in either case.

What is your method for determining that?

see above

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

face palm....It is an attack on my character and beliefs with you rewrite what I say and believe to offer judgments that don't fit. Take a post not long ago where in 2 sentences you misrepresented me no less than 5 times and take no responsibility for that, in fact, instead of taking responsibility, you went on some long justification of a comment in which there was a typo from IF to is and the numerous times I clarified what I was saying and you ignored....I let that go, even took responsibility for the confusion, but you didn't even accept it then. You see, the plan truth is that PHILOSOPHY forum is not an excuse to behave poorly which some of you all don't seem to understand. In fact, it still requires that you listen and honestly represent what the other person is saying rather than the dishonest stuff this thread has been full of. So if you want to challenge my ideas, please do, but don't misrepresent me and say...you can't get mad because this is what philosophy forum is all about...cause it isn't.

OK, I don't think we're going to make any reasonable progress if that's how you see our discussion, so I'll leave you to it.

I'll just point out that if you find you're having similar issues with other posters, you might like to think about why that might be...

 

[razzelflabben]

You understand that a large chunk of what we'd call "essential morality" is what our laws are.

Legal system is a system of morality. Morality is merely a label for "desired behavioral standards"... which is what law is.

ah....what point are you trying to make? That our laws are based largely on morality? duh.....Sin is based on God's law not man's, is that what you want to say? I don't know, you stumped me as to your point....

 

[razzelflabben]

OK, I don't think we're going to make any reasonable progress if that's how you see our discussion, so I'll leave you to it.

I'll just point out that if you find you're having similar issues with other posters, you might like to think about why that might be...

I'm beginning to think that you all aren't thinkers enough to have a good discussion with...not said as an insult just saying that I am harder on my views than you all are, but I don't have to reinvent what I say in order to make an argument against them...I wanted challenge, the only challenge I found was the challenge to get you all to not reinvent what I said. There were a couple of good discussion moments, but they were short and very pale compared to the criticisms I present to myself...which is painfully disappointing....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Slavery then - moral or not?

It's a good question - R.M. Hare wrote an interesting paper on it, "What's Wrong With Slavery?", where he examined a utilitarian case for slavery by contrasting two (fictitious) islands, one with well-treated slaves, and prosperous as a result, and one without slaves and consequently poverty stricken and generally grim, and discussing just what it is about slavery that makes it seem immoral to us. Of course, slavery has not always been thought immoral by some cultures, even in relatively recent times (ISTR a civil war in North America not so long ago where it played an important role ).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm beginning to think that you all aren't thinkers enough to have a good discussion with...not said as an insult just saying that I am harder on my views than you all are, but I don't have to reinvent what I say in order to make an argument against them...I wanted challenge, the only challenge I found was the challenge to get you all to not reinvent what I said. There were a couple of good discussion moments, but they were short and very pale compared to the criticisms I present to myself...which is painfully disappointing....

I'm sorry you feel that way; I hope you can find another thread or forum where the posting is more to your taste.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm sorry you feel that way; I hope you can find another thread or forum where the posting is more to your taste.

I grieve that these boards are not what the creators intended...

 

[devolved]

sure, but then again, we talked about that to as well as how those words would not be as comforting as you think if it is only a teaching...but hey, just because we talked about this already doesn't mean we talked about it huh?

No. They don't think that it's only a teaching, but the fact that they are convinced something is true BECAUSE IT PROMISES COMFORT AND PLAYS ON EMOTIONAL STATES that's coupled with certain degree of willful ignorance from people who are willing to accept the premise... doesn't elevate such believe when it comes to the reality of the claim.

Again, you are correlating inconclusive causes.

It doesn't really matter what the claim is. Some people continually use Psychics because it brings them comfort to get some sense of peace and self-validation. Some people think that their cats are re-incarnated loved ones. The point being is that it does exactly the same effect.

Again, you keep begging the question here and ignoring the obvious, while claiming scientific approach.

 

[razzelflabben]

that last post inspired me to try it one last time and see if anyone on here really knows how to have a discussion....one of the common beliefs that people have is that of creation verses evolution. Without talking about which is more or less "scientific" let's talk about how we could test to know if something, anything at all is created.

For example, in the above post, I assumed this thread was created, how could I test that assumption to know if it is true or delusion? Any takers? It's a belief I have that this thread was created, but how can we know if that belief is delusion or not? as per the OP question. Notice we are talking about this thread and these boards, not creation/evolution in this experiment to see if any of you know how to discuss things. Call it a social experiment

 

[razzelflabben]

No. They don't think that it's only a teaching, but the fact that they are convinced something is true BECAUSE IT PROMISES COMFORT AND PLAYS ON EMOTIONAL STATES that's coupled with certain degree of willful ignorance from people who are willing to accept the premise.

not sure why I am even bothering, but I have unfortunately been to many funerals, quite a few of young people. I have seen those that believed a teaching and had opportunity to compare their reactions to those who show evidence of relationship....both comforted with the same words and the reactions are nothing at all similar. Not sure how to explain the difference in words but if you see it side by side so to speak, the difference is unbelievable. And that is all I will say about that, not just because this has turned to insanity but because I don't want to think about our own loss today. Today is for other things.

It doesn't really matter what the claim is. Some people continually use Psychics because it brings them comfort to get some sense of peace and self-validation. Some people think that their cats are re-incarnated loved ones. The point being is that it does exactly the same effect.

Again, you keep begging the question here and ignoring the obvious, while claiming scientific approach.

so ignore the things I have said and the points I am making...that is how this thread has been operating so far and I just am tired of it...I want real discussion not, reinventions and pretend posts...

 

[devolved]

It's a belief I have that this thread was created, but how can we know if that belief is delusion or not?

Are you asking whether you think that the thread is real or merely a figment of your imagination? Or you are asking whether we can test whether someone actually created this thread as opposed to... what other alternatives?

 

[devolved]

I have seen those that believed a teaching and had opportunity to compare their reactions to those who show evidence of relationship....both comforted with the same words and the reactions are nothing at all similar. Not sure how to explain the difference in words but if you see it side by side so to speak, the difference is unbelievable. And that is all I will say about that, not just because this has turned to insanity but because I don't want to think about our own loss today. Today is for other things.

Have you been to Hindu or Bhuddist funerals to tell the difference? What are you comparing to?

I've already explained that OF COURSE people WHO BELIEVE in certain reality will react to death differently, BASED ON CERTAIN BELIEF ABOUT DEATH. Of itself, that reaction says nothing about WHETHER SUCH BELIEF IS TRUE OR NOT.

 

[razzelflabben]

Are you asking whether you think that the thread is real or merely a figment of your imagination? Or you are asking whether we can test whether someone actually created this thread as opposed to... what other alternatives?

I am saying that I believe the thread was created, I also believe the boards were created. How can I know if my belief is real or delusion except to test it....you know, like the OP question asks. Apply the OP question as asked to the belief that the thread was created and tell me how to know if it is real or delusion. No harder a question than the OP question, in fact, it is the same question just reworded.

 

[devolved]

We are more than just physical beings. The mind and the brain are not the same. The mind uses the brain to send messages to the body in order to function. When we die, our brains are dead, but our mind moves on. The soul is composed of mind, emotions, will, talents, love and hate -- all things that are not physical. You can't open up a brain and see thoughts, love, ideas, or as with some people who have photographic memory, an encyclopedia of information.

Why would we need the endocrine system for? You realize that emotional states could be induced simply by injecting adequate hormones, right? Are hormones a part of the soul too?