Question about love...

[PeterL]

Why thank you PeterL for breaking it down so simply as a basic biological chemical reaction. All the centuries of work, the study and stories broken down to nothing more than electrons firing in the brain! Alas! The mystery solved! We are but automatons continually firing off each other with no greater purpose in life than to fart, watch TV and reproduce the next batch of Wal-Mart shoppers! I feel so much better now!

You are more than welcome. I used to be mystifies by love until I learned about the collection of neurotransmitters that are involved. Fear not, I realize that you were trying to be sarcastic.

May I pose a question? What if the neurotransmitters are a physical response to a field that is yet indefinable? What if the feeling (for lack of a better term) predates the physical response? Maybe the firings in the brain are the biological responses to that feeling, not the neurotransmitters firing and then love. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

That is conceivable, but it is not what the evidence indicates. If you have been following that search for consciousness, you will understand that a lot of people are looking for that mysterious field, but no one has found it.

You can see and only measure response to and against something else, what sets it all in motion from the start? Electricity is all around you, but not until it can be funneled, harnessed, made and passed through some controlled form can it be measured; so what is it before it is measure and whence forth did it come? So yes, there is work in the brain, sane as in the bowels, but where and why does it start?

If you can demonstrate the existence of these things that you suggest exist, then I think that you should publish. If you are referring to mystical levels of consciousness, then it is a matter that has been known for thousands of years, but it has not yet been shown to exist on the physical level.

Sorry, it's not that simple PeterL.

Don't be sorry. I have followed mystical practices, and I am fully aware of some of the other levels of consciousness. Emotions are not mystical in origin.

[Insomniac]

In fact, given what we see, cases of divorces, split families, abandoned homes and the like I simply cannot say there is anything called love, deep down.

We all fulfill our own needs, urges in the name of love.

It is skin-deep. Do not idealize and depend on any person. Too much attachment is not love.

I agree completely blaze. Earlier I came up with my own theory; that love of a person is nothing more than how good you feel around said person.

The level of goodness is equal to the perceived level of love.

People change, and love is sometimes lost. However, you stop loving someone because you don't feel good around them anymore.

[grotto]

No need to fret PeterL and I thank you though for getting the sarcasm, most was said tongue in cheek.

I don’t follow any mystical path though; I think it is neither one nor the other, and to say prove one or the other is not my bend. Evidence only shows what one is searching for or trying to prove a point on at times, not what really is, and if we stayed the course of mere evidence alone without question, the world would still be flat, human sacrifices, blood lettings by the barber and sex for procreation alone would all be unquestioned to this day, well, that is assuming we would have ever even evolved that far.

There are many things yet to be discovered and I’m not so foolish as to assume it is all known, or knowable. A little mystery is a good thing as long as you’re not afraid of it.

To me, Love is many things, but it is not something to hide in, covet, aspire too, seek or hold. I can’t buy or have some one give it to me, control or point to it and I have no interest in proving whether it exists or doesn’t. My point in the neurotransmitter firing sequence was only to point out that, yes, it’s there, but, what caused the fire? When you sit idly, doing nothing and lets say something excites you and an emotion arises, what struck that sequence in motion? Biochemistry only registers that it has happened, not that it started it.

[PeterL]

I don’t follow any mystical path though; I think it is neither one nor the other, and to say prove one or the other is not my bend. Evidence only shows what one is searching for or trying to prove a point on at times, not what really is, and if we stayed the course of mere evidence alone without question, the world would still be flat, human sacrifices, blood lettings by the barber and sex for procreation alone would all be unquestioned to this day, well, that is assuming we would have ever even evolved that far.

Au contraire, if people operated from evidence alone, then science would be much further developed than it is. It was from evidence that the ancients first deduced that the Earth was not flat. Medicine was a purely empirical science. The emotion of love was designed so that people, and maybe other animals, would have feelings toward spouse and offspring that would encourage them to stay together and raise the children until the children could fend for themselves. The forces that oppose evidence have been religions and those whose livelihoods depended on things being more or less constant.

There are many things yet to be discovered and I’m not so foolish as to assume it is all known, or knowable. A little mystery is a good thing as long as you’re not afraid of it.

To me, Love is many things, but it is not something to hide in, covet, aspire too, seek or hold. I can’t buy or have some one give it to me, control or point to it and I have no interest in proving whether it exists or doesn’t. My point in the neurotransmitter firing sequence was only to point out that, yes, it’s there, but, what caused the fire? When you sit idly, doing nothing and lets say something excites you and an emotion arises, what struck that sequence in motion? Biochemistry only registers that it has happened, not that it started it.

I understand your problem, but it would take a few months of five hundred word replies to teach you how DNA operates people and uses emotions to get humans to do things that they wouldn't do without some reward or punishment. The whole matter is faairly simple when one knows the pieces, but there are many pieces.

[grotto]

As you wish PeterL, I have no interest in debating and I do not see myself as having a problem, but that is for you to prove with evidence and as the answer is in the DNA package, it shouldn’t take much. Evidence has never been wrong now has it? I guess it’s all in how you read that evidence and how it is presented or understood.

I agree to disagree, yet I see your point and will keep it in the back of my mind as I do a lot of thoughts, but then again, what is the mind and what is thought?

[The Atheist]

Love is a very simple matter, but most people choose not to accept the actuality. Love is a matter of certain neurotransmitters being produced and released to the blood, where they affect a variety of physical systems. The result of those chemical releases are feelings of warmth and happiness, especially with respect to the person or thing that caused the reaction. The reason for love is for survival and evolutionary goals. When we experience something that will lead to our survival or reproductive success, then the appropriate neurotransmitters are released, and we feel love.

Extremely well put.

I've found that that example is far too obvious for most people to be able to handle, and they cover it up with this kind of retort:

Sorry, it's not that simple PeterL.

The bad news is that all evidence, sceintific, psychological and sociological, says that it is that simple and we just ought to accept it.

[grotto]

Just accept it?

Wow! Life is going to be pretty dang boring from here on out!

[billl]

Well, we have a right to have opinions about the best way for those neurotransmitters to be firing, or at least how we think they do or should for some of us. Different societies and cultures have an effect on the playing field in which all of the brain machinery operates (whether you think there's free will there or not), and the environment might also bring about changes in "habits" or "fashions" or "memes" about how we love--and we ourselves might effect, indirectly and directly, the nature of our environment, as it relates to love. Human relationships and culture(s) (and the vagaries of everyday life) end up having an effect on our emotional needs. And the problems and solutions in that sphere aren't properly addressed by simply pointing to the chemicals under the hood. (Unless there's a movement to just hand out "love" pills to everybody or something.) It's a little easy to slap people with a reductivist perspective when they want to engage in something a little more searching. I know there's good motives in it sometimes, but things really aren't that simple. (Incidentally, I don't think there was any reason to think that grotto is particularly uninformed regarding DNA and the role of neurotransmitters, not much more than anybody else posting anyhow.)

I think it's fair to look beyond the chemicals and into the nature of human experience, where all the evidence is, if we want to discuss the word "love". And THEN say, "But, hey, look how chemicals were involved." But don't ever expect for sure to have it all pinned down, no matter how good and reliable science most definitely is when it manages to get its hands around something completely. Because science is about modeling, and generalizing in a universe that always seems to get as complex as we could want it to be.

C'mon guys! There was some good discussion going on earlier.

[Delta40]

Comment from an onlooker:

I think science is God when it comes to Love so we can:

a) acknowledge that we do have feelings
b) acknowledge we have feelings and they are not in our control
c) we don't get our feelings hurt

It's that simple. I do enjoy reading the reductionist viewpoint on life though.

[The Atheist]

Just accept it?

Wow! Life is going to be pretty dang boring from here on out!

That's a common, but badly flawed, answer.

Why does love being explicable and materialist lessen the emotion?

Well, we have a right to have opinions about the best way for those neurotransmitters to be firing, or at least how we think they do or should for some of us. Different societies and cultures have an effect on the playing field in which all of the brain machinery operates (whether you think there's free will there or not), and the environment might also bring about changes in "habits" or "fashions" or "memes" about how we love--and we ourselves might effect, indirectly and directly, the nature of our environment, as it relates to love.

None of the changes the universality of electro-chemical actions in the brain. We use human constructs to "feel" the feelings, but they're the same everywhere.

Human relationships and culture(s) (and the vagaries of everyday life) end up having an effect on our emotional needs. And the problems and solutions in that sphere aren't properly addressed by simply pointing to the chemicals under the hood.

Which parts aren't properly addressed by materialist answers?

(Unless there's a movement to just hand out "love" pills to everybody or something.) It's a little easy to slap people with a reductivist perspective when they want to engage in something a little more searching. I know there's good motives in it sometimes, but things really aren't that simple.

But because they are, why do you think that lessens it?

Is a fast car any less exciting because we understand how the internal combustion engine works?

The problem seems to be that most people want "love" to be something special - i.e. not purely material.

Hard luck!

I think it's fair to look beyond the chemicals and into the nature of human experience, where all the evidence is, if we want to discuss the word "love".

Alas, if that were entirely true, people brought up without love wouldn't be capable of it, and they clearly are.

But don't ever expect for sure to have it all pinned down, no matter how good and reliable science most definitely is when it manages to get its hands around something completely. Because science is about modeling, and generalizing in a universe that always seems to get as complex as we could want it to be.

Nope. Science is about observation. Science cannot generalise.

[billl]

None of the changes the universality of electro-chemical actions in the brain. We use human constructs to "feel" the feelings, but they're the same everywhere.

Which parts aren't properly addressed by materialist answers?

The parts involving individual experience, preference, and our thoughts about where things might best go from here. The parts which we ourselves participate in.
And if you think that we are simply materialistically determined agents with no free will, then it would be silly to lament why people don't understand that. How could they not, if that's their materialistically determined fate?
And if you think there is free will involved (via some interesting materialistic mechanism), then a broad avenue of discussion opens up.

Anyhow, I am not trying to deny the universality of certain electro-chemical process. But things are "that simple" only if you are only concerned with electro-chemical processes. If those processes are going to be considered in light of their relation to external processes, conditioning/imprinting, and the environment, then things are no longer simple at all.

But because they are, why do you think that lessens it?

Or, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Oldest rhetorical trick in the book...
Anyhow, I don't think scientific explanation lessens anything, but lets still allow ourselves to talk about the forest as well as the trees. I just sort of felt a a discussion about peering into the distance was being dismissed by a sudden focus on how eyeballs work.

Is a fast car any less exciting because we understand how the internal combustion engine works?

No, but do we really agree about where to go? Seatbelts? Speed-limits? Exactly how much alcohol we could add to our chemical machinery while driving?

The problem seems to be that most people want "love" to be something special - i.e. not purely material.

Hard luck!

I hear you, and I'll leave it at that. Well, actually, I will mention that this is a literature site, with a poetry section and everything.

Alas, if that were entirely true, people brought up without love wouldn't be capable of it, and they clearly are.

Excellent point. I overstated things there. I should have said "half" of the evidence is there, or however we might value a fingerprint relative to the dust that brings it to light. What is truly wonderful is that the built-in emotional drives can lead to such variation through cultures and individuals, and yet remain recognizable in particular instances.

I think the fact that emotions are part of our (evolutionary!) design, and that they help us navigate life and survive, thrive, and reproduce is a really important point. I am not trying to join anyone in denying that.
But, if we look at birds on Galapagos Island, we don't just point at their DNA. We observe behavior, and look for ways in which their design and adaptations are shaped by their environment's demands. In fact their adaptations can spur adaptations in other members of their ecological community. Adaptations might even have unexpected effects on mating rituals, and so on. I think a discussion of "love" can reasonably move beyond DNA and neurotransmitters as well. And if we want to think anything is "special" in our lives, I think the word "love" would make the cut for a lot of people, and understandably so, in my opinion.

Nope. Science is about observation. Science cannot generalise.

Ugh, you got me--kind of I think you are of course right that science isn't simply about generalization, but typed too quickly when you say "cannot". Unless statistics is voodoo.
Anyhow, I was talking of course about inductive generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inducti...Generalization) The great power of science is that it can predict what will happen in certain individual cases, based on previous cases. As this power is stretched further (for example into increasingly complex, or fuzzy realms such as psychology, sociology, and galaxy formation), science can do wonders via generalization. But the phrase "It's that simple." applies less and less. That's what I was swept up in, how science, and it's power to generalize might usefully address a human discussion of love (rather than dump cold water on it).

[The Atheist]

The parts involving individual experience, preference, and our thoughts about where things might best go from here. The parts which we ourselves participate in.
And if you think that we are simply materialistically determined agents with no free will, then it would be silly to lament why people don't understand that. How could they not, if that's their materialistically determined fate?
And if you think there is free will involved (via some interesting materialistic mechanism), then a broad avenue of discussion opens up.

Nah, I just find that thanks to several centuries of theism, people generally have a poor understanding of what "free will" means.

That is latched onto people's misunderstanding of what materialism and determinism mean. If I say your traits and actions are determined, it doesn't equate to a set fate, just that you are a product of your genes and conditioning. Because random (in casino-speak) things happen all your life, the determined path contains billions of choices, all of which you satisfy with what is known as free will.

Anyhow, I am not trying to deny the universality of certain electro-chemical process. But things are "that simple" only if you are only concerned with electro-chemical processes. If those processes are going to be considered in light of their relation to external processes, conditioning/imprinting, and the environment, then things are no longer simple at all.

They are really, it's just that we can't predict them, because we don't keep a second-by-second diary of our lives and we aren't allowed to conduct experiments with humans which would prove the theories right. If we could take control groups of children and either nurture or ignore them, we could make some pretty interesting studies, but when we're limited to working with humans whose constructs have already been set by their environment, we can't have an adequate control group.

Or, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Oldest rhetorical trick in the book...

Not really - I find even hard atheists and materialists still want to put love on a higher plane than say, defecation. Given that both are simply material processes, I can't do that, nor do I need to to see that one is inherently a superior function than the other. Snails can defecate, but I bet they can't fall in love.

Anyhow, I don't think scientific explanation lessens anything, but lets still allow ourselves to talk about the forest as well as the trees. I just sort of felt a a discussion about peering into the distance was being dismissed by a sudden focus on how eyeballs work.

But it's all the same - material is as material does. It's just that moving one's eyeball is a little easier than picking a mate.

No, but do we really agree about where to go? Seatbelts? Speed-limits? Exactly how much alcohol we could add to our chemical machinery while driving?

Individual choice - you can use that free will to decide whether the risks outweigh the rewards.

[QUOTE=billl;745377]I hear you, and I'll leave it at that. Well, actually, I will mention that this is a literature site, with a poetry section and everything.

I know. My hard materialist attitudes often don't gel with aesthetic appreciation - you ought to check out my "Shakespeare is over-rated" thread!

Excellent point. I overstated things there. I should have said "half" of the evidence is there, or however we might value a fingerprint relative to the dust that brings it to light. What is truly wonderful is that the built-in emotional drives can lead to such variation through cultures and individuals, and yet remain recognizable in particular instances.

I'd be the first to agree that experience is subjective.

I think the fact that emotions are part of our (evolutionary!) design, and that they help us navigate life and survive, thrive, and reproduce is a really important point. I am not trying to join anyone in denying that.

And if those emotions which we've constructed end up killing the species?

I think a discussion of "love" can reasonably move beyond DNA and neurotransmitters as well. And if we want to think anything is "special" in our lives, I think the word "love" would make the cut for a lot of people, and understandably so, in my opinion.

You're not alone there!

That's what I was swept up in, how science, and it's power to generalize might usefully address a human discussion of love (rather than dump cold water on it).

Faur enough; I think it's just a semantic difference - I'd call it prediction rather than generalisation.

[Zee.]

Well I think you're all wrong. About the chemical factor etc
people say that love is just what, chemicals in your brain? uhhhh no. That is your response to love.
I mean, you have to love the thing first, before you feel the feeling. What i'm saying is, we don't feel "love" for everything, we feel it for specific things. If love was just a chemical reaction than it would be unruly. Love isn't just a feeling you get..
I mean, the feeling i get when i love something is just telling me/reminding me that I love it, nonetheless, i care for it. There isn't a chemical for caring, as far as i'm concerned.

The chemical produced in our brain is the feeling of love, but it isnt what makes us love.

[billl]

Awesome post limajean. Lots of important stuff going on outside the head.

[Zee.]

Please don't tell me that was... sarcasm?