TS,
Are you intimating the existence of gravity atoms?
I specifically chose gravity for a reason. Unlike a physical construct which can be reduced to atoms, gravity cannot be reduced by Science. Its effects can be explained, but it does not exist except in terms of metaphysical devices used to explain it, or by evaluating it by its effects. I submit, that we do not know what it is just because we know some of what it does.
Feel free to try to define gravity objectively. Unlike a house, it is not an object. Analogy between reduction of something physical and reduction of an unseen force is, in my opinion, quite a stretch.
emotions are simply chemical interactions in the brain
Can you prove that this is all emotions are? I invite you again to do so.
why would there be ANY reason to assume otherwise? i am aware of no objective documentation that shows there is anything else. why do people have to be openminded to "possibilities" when there is no good reason to think the "possibilities" are real?
They don't have to be. As I have said many times. And it isn't a matter of this assumption being the problem, it is a matter of how it applied to challenge the honesty and integrity of others per point #5.
If you wish to assume only a physical world and establish a reference to that world for the purpose of exploring it that is limited to your initial assumption, that is entirely fine with me. I don't mind at all. Just don't tell me that MY beliefs are baseless because I can't demonstrate their truthfulness based on YOUR rules. They may be baseless TO YOU, but then, your rules are self-restricted from ever exploring my beliefs.
It isn't even circular logic until it reaches point #5.
But your question is fair, as stated above. There would not be any reason to assume one way or the other. That is, there is no objective reason to have ever developed the Scientific Method in the first place, unless you wish to argue that something as nebulous as "FOR THE BETTERMENT OF MAN!!!" is a reason to do something. We really don't know how any decision or indecision we make is going to impact the species in the future, so there is no reason per se to have come up with it.
But, if you need some sort of motivating impulse behind believeing that there might be more to reality, I offer human history. As motivating impulse to at least entertain the possibility of more than only a physical reality, one might consider that every culture of man since the advent of tools and likely before has considered that possibility. So, from a historical perspective, one might be harder pressed to show "reason" not to.
As proof that I do not wish to hurl us back to an age without critical thought, I submit my entire body of posts on this forum. That settled, once and for all I hope, we can move to more productive discussion.
explanations are all we may have.
But, they aren't all we have. We have many, many elements of reality that are unexplained. We have many elements of reality that are only described, but not defined. We have many elements of reality that will never be other than subjective and will always exist outside the bounds of the Scienctific Method.
[Science] Aha! This region of the brain is the source of aggression ("Mama's not wrong Colonel Sanders. You're wrong!") the medulla oblongata! Now that we know that, we know what hate is!
[know-nothing believer] Er, pardon me, but how does knowing where it comes from tell you what it is? And that is if you have correctly identified the only source of aggression. And is "hate" always aggression? But, hey! I'll take your word for it, you say you know what hate is? Tell me.
[Science] Well, er, um, the uh only way to tell you what hate is would be to describe it.
[know-nothing believer] Yeah? You don't say. Okay, go ahead.
[Science] It uh, is a feeling of hostility or a mood of animosity toward another person, whether acted on or not.
[know-nothing believer] There you go with Scientific mumbo-jumbo, supersticiously attributing mood to humans. Hah! You were kidding right? "Mood?" Like "mood rings" and crap? Seriously, what is hate? Sounded like you said, ineffect, hate is animosity and hostility. My next question would be what is animosity. Your anser would be? Hate and hostility. Circular logic will get you nowhere, what is hate?
Enough of that! Whew! The upshot is, emotion is subjective and therefore cannot be objectively reduced. Other experiences are similarly subjective.
Respectfully,
OldSoul