Love?

[EnderWiggin]

Well, I suppose the question is more, why do people have unsafe sex and risk catching or passing on HIV?

Ok, as long as you weren't insinuating that using a condom meant you loved someone more than not.

 

_EW_

 

I'll never forget how my 10th grade english teacher used to describe love - "Mutual Usury." I'll help you, talk to you, make you feel important. You just do the same for me.

 

Did I mention he was divorced?

[jonathan7]

Ok, as long as you weren't insinuating that using a condom meant you loved someone more than not.

 

lol, Nah, thats not what I meant. It was more a point in our times, as to why people don't practice safe sex.

 

I'll never forget how my 10th grade english teacher used to describe love - "Mutual Usury." I'll help you, talk to you, make you feel important. You just do the same for me.

 

Did I mention he was divorced?

 

'Mutuall Usury', isn't the way I would define love.

[Achilles]

Love, I think is trying to achieve what is best for the other person as far as it can be obtained. My 2 cents on the definition

There's a difference between being part of someone's support system and being their entire support system. Healthy relationships allow for room, independence, and self-sufficiency. Again, what you're suggesting here is classic codependency type stuff.

 

Perhaps, I try to live out my vision of love, though most people would think me one of the most independant people they know. Though we are in many respects interconected with one another, and dependant on one another to an extent, why is codependancy so bad?

There's a huge difference between being a partner in a relationship and being someone's caregiver. Being responsible for someone's well-being is all well and good when one goes by "mommy" or "daddy" but otherwise it tends to come with some nasty side-effects.

 

I can't speak for generations in the states, but my generation in the UK is in a poor way; not only is the education system a shambles, but enculturation is having a massively destructive impact, and no-one as far as I can see is even aware of this. I have my hypothesis as to why that is; Television, I think is a big culprit.

*shrugs* FWIW, I honestly think that every generation thinks of previous generations in a "golden age" type of way. How does one compare Marilyn Manson to Alice Cooper to Ozzy Ozbourne to The Doors to The Beatles to Elvis. We look at Elvis and think "Elvis?! How the hell did Elvis end up on that list". Of course, that's because it's difficult for us to picture that outrage that parents had over Elvis Presley, The Beatles, etc.

 

I think chasing over to money, power and fame are all pointless endevours.

Still not sure how that's related (in fact it appears that you simply repeated the last point with a few more words ).

 

Take for example saving up for that bigger house; will it really make you happy?

Toss this unto your summer reading pile.

 

I dunno if you consider my below responces ontopic or not.. however I do

 

Please elaborate, I don't quite follow what you mean by esteem?

How to tell when people don't click on the links that you provide for them, part 1.

 

Esteem needs

 

I think you misunderstand me, if you think I'm saying love is easy, or that its all 'nicey nicey'.

What I am saying is that you cannot use someone's fiction as a baseline for what "love" should look like in the real world.

 

I've tryed to rectify that at the start of the topic, though in some senses the thread was a debate over what people think love means anyways.

To be honest, you seem to largely be figuring that out as you go along, so no, I don't think it's been operationally defined. I am all for the debate though

[Jae Onasi]

What is love and what does it mean?

It is so much more than oxytocin. It is so much more than oxytocin, neuroanatomy, and electrophysiology combined, since just the hormone alone doesn't even begin to come close to explaining love. A baby has to be exposed to and experience love in order for him or her to develop properly not only psychologically but at the very neuronal level, so clearly love is much more than just one's own biochemistry and anatomy.

 

1 Corinthians 13 describes love beautifully:

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

 

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

 

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

Love is the ultimate ethic, and this is reflected in laws of many cultures and religions. If you love your neighbor, you don't steal from him. You don't hurt him. You don't screw around with his wife. You don't hurt his children. You don't speak ill of him or lie about him or to him. If you love your parents unconditionally, you show respect to them and love them, just as they gave love to you. If you love your spouse, you cherish him or her, stay with him or her, don't abuse or cheat on him or her, and you help your spouse to grow and develop personally and with you as a couple. If you love your children you help them grow and develop properly into adults, and love them unconditionally when they screw up.

 

If the ultimate ethic is love, it allows for and explains things like altruism and that supreme sacrifice of oneself to save others when the situation allows no other option.

 

To address dysfunctional relationships as noted above--love does not mean you allow someone to abuse you or treat you badly without repercussions, but it does allow you to forgive them even as you remove yourself from the situation to prevent further destructive behaviors.

 

Love means giving yourself to others, not because you expect anything back, but because God loves us and wants to share love with us, and wants us to reflect and share His love with others. For those not religiously inclined, it means giving yourself to others because humanity is precious and greatly in need of love, and withholding it only makes us lesser both individually and as a people.

[Achilles]

It is so much more than oxytocin.

I'm sure it's possible there are other chemicals and horomones involved as well.

 

It is so much more than oxytocin, neuroanatomy, and electrophysiology combined, since just the hormone alone doesn't even begin to come close to explaining love.

Why not? On what basis can you objectively rule out these other factors (which you would have to do in order to establish that there is "more")?

 

A baby has to be exposed to and experience love in order for him or her to develop properly not only psychologically but at the very neuronal level, so clearly love is much more than just one's own biochemistry and anatomy.

Perhaps being exposed to affection (love isn't a tangible thing) helps the emotional centers in the brain to develop. If that were the case, then that would explain why affection and bonding are critical to child development while keeping it within the explorable boundaries of biochemistry and anatomy, would it not?

 

1 Corinthians 13 describes love beautifully:

<snip>

While that is lovely, I wonder why I should consider Paul an authority on love.

 

Love is the ultimate ethic,

I don't know about that

 

...and this is reflected in laws of many cultures and religions.

It would seem that empathy is anyway.

 

If the ultimate ethic is love, it allows for and explains things like altruism and that supreme sacrifice of oneself to save others when the situation allows no other option.

Empathy, duty, and even ego are explanations as well.

 

Love means giving yourself to others, not because you expect anything back, but because God loves us and wants to share love with us, and wants us to reflect and share His love with others. For those not religiously inclined, it means giving yourself to others because humanity is precious and greatly in need of love, and withholding it only makes us lesser both individually and as a people.

The reasoning seems circular, but I like the image that the sentiment creates. Thanks for sharing it!

[Salzella]

I'll never forget how my 10th grade english teacher used to describe love - "Mutual Usury."

 

A minor spelling mistake and that would be pretty amusing

[Q]

I'll never forget how my 10th grade english teacher used to describe love - "Mutual Usury." I'll help you, talk to you, make you feel important. You just do the same for me.

 

Did I mention he was divorced?

I've always referred to it as "emotional codependency" myself, but then at least I've had the good sense to not get married with such an attitude.

 

In my experience it's just a lie that people tell each other when they feel the need to justify their "mutual usury." Whereas God is capable of love (maybe, if you believe in that sort of thing), and Dog is capable of love (definitely), mankind is only capable of BS.

 

"Mutual usury." Yeah, I like that.

[Samuel Dravis]

Whereas God is capable of love (maybe, if you believe in that sort of thing), and Dog is capable of love (definitely), mankind is only capable of BS.

That's a strange way of looking at it. A God's love is very different from a person's (in demonstration if not description), and it's the same with a dog's love. "Only?" I tend to think that it would be a bad idea to use that viewpoint. It's unnecessarily limited.

[Corinthian]

I wonder when it became wise to hate humanity.

[mimartin]

So what is love?

Please forgive if this looks like spam, but it is the best description of what I believe love is.

 

Love is hard work, but usual worth the effort.

[Q]

I was in a particularly foul mood yesterday when I typed that post and a foul mood tends to distort my perception (it paints it black) and decision-making (like posting things I shouldn't).

 

Pay it no mind.

[Gurges-Ahter]

I think it has some validity, Qliveur, even if it was written during a time when you were in a bad mood. I am married and do feel like I "love" my wife, but it's certainly different than the way I "love" my children. I agree with Samuel Dravis that the "only" should be removed. The "love" for my children is not BS; it's closer to the "love" you describe from a dog or God, I think, rather than the "love" people have for a spouse/significant other.

[EnderWiggin]

I think it has some validity, Qliveur, even if it was written during a time when you were in a bad mood. I am married and do feel like I "love" my wife, but it's certainly different than the way I "love" my children. I agree with Samuel Dravis that the "only" should be removed. The "love" for my children is not BS; it's closer to the "love" you describe from a dog or God, I think, rather than the "love" people have for a spouse/significant other.

 

I would agree that it has some validity.

 

Here's another quote that I have:

A pair of powerful spectacles has sometimes sufficed to cure a person in love.

Interestingly enough, when I first heard this quote, I attacked it vehemently. I made the case that the only love that can be cured by looking closer is a love that never existed. But on the other hand, mutual usury has a certain ring to it.

 

It is so much more than oxytocin.

 

I agree. I think oxytocin plays a big part, but I think the entire process has something more to it. Else we'd understand it a lot better, no?

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

I agree. I think oxytocin plays a big part, but I think the entire process has something more to it. Else we'd understand it a lot better, no?

This assumes that we have a very good understanding of how the brain works. An assumption not shared by people that actually study the brain/behavior

[EnderWiggin]

This assumes that we have a very good understanding of how the brain works. An assumption not shared by people that actually study the brain/behavior

 

Yeah, I understand that. That's kind of what I mean. If it were just the levels of oxytocin in the brain, then wouldn't it be quite easy to see that?

 

I do admit I'm not well versed in the intricacies of neuroscience, but...

 

I think the reason that we don't understand the brain better may be just that. There may be more to it then just chemicals.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Yeah, I understand that. That's kind of what I mean. If it were just the levels of oxytocin in the brain, then wouldn't it be quite easy to see that?

Perhaps yes and perhaps no.

 

Suppose you one day found the cure for cancer scribbled out in a language that you didn't recognize. Would you immediately know what it was or would you first need to spend years learning the language, then years learning the science before you could then truly understand what was being said?

 

If you've seen the movie Contact, perhaps you could draw a similar analogy with the message, blueprints, and eventual "ship".

 

This is a poor analogy because it suggests that someone else first had the answer and wrote it down, but I'm hoping you'll overlook this in order to see the point.

 

I think the reason that we don't understand the brain better may be just that. There may be more to it then just chemicals.

I would tend to agree with the words, however since I'm not quite clear on the sentiment I'll have to hold off on providing my endorsement

 

Think about it this way: What part of the flashlight is light? None of it. Combine the right components in the right way and you have a piece of hardware capable of producing light but to say that the light is "more" than the flashlight is false because without the flashlight, the light doesn't exist.

 

We see the light and we see the flashlight but we refuse to accept that the light we see is a product of the flashlight itself.

 

My 2 cents.

[EnderWiggin]

Perhaps yes and perhaps no.

 

Suppose you one day found the cure for cancer scribbled out in a language that you didn't recognize. Would you immediately know what it was or would you first need to spend years learning the language, then years learning the science before you could then truly understand what was being said?

 

If you've seen the movie Contact, perhaps you could draw a similar analogy with the message, blueprints, and eventual "ship".

 

This is a poor analogy because it suggests that someone else first had the answer and wrote it down, but I'm hoping you'll overlook this in order to see the point.

 

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but along those lines: After you researched and studied and learned some about the language, wouldn't you think you'd pick up on enough to give you an inkling that it's the cure for cancer - or for that matter, just a recipe for soup?

 

I'm under the impression that we know enough about the brain to say more about love than "Dunno" and shrugging our shoulders. I think that if it was just the oxytocin levels, we'd know that by now.

 

I would tend to agree with the words, however since I'm not quite clear on the sentiment I'll have to hold of on providing my endorsement

 

What do you mean?

 

Think about it this way: What part of the flashlight is light? None of it. Combine the right components in the right way and you have a piece of hardware capable of producing light but to say that the light is "more" than the flashlight is false because without the flashlight, the light doesn't exist.

 

We see the light and we see the flashlight but we refuse to accept that the light we see is a product of the flashlight itself.

 

I understand your points. I recognize your analogy. However, since neither of us know whether or not it's veritable, it doesn't really convince me all that much. And I'd dispute the point that the light is 'more' than the flashlight itself. I think it's a product of the components, which is something more.

 

Again, that's working in the analogy. I personally don't think our brain is as simple as a light bulb.

 

 

My 2 cents.

 

And mine as well. Thanks for reading.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but along those lines: After you researched and studied and learned some about the language, wouldn't you think you'd pick up on enough to give you an inkling that it's the cure for cancer - or for that matter, just a recipe for soup?

Yes, but you're assuming that we're at the end of that process instead of somewhere in the middle (which is where the expert guess they are, not knowing where the finish line is and all ).

 

I'm under the impression that we know enough about the brain to say more about love than "Dunno" and shrugging our shoulders. I think that if it was just the oxytocin levels, we'd know that by now.

I suppose I can't force you to abandon your assumptions, however I will point out that progress is not hitched to your expectations

 

What do you mean?

It means that I might agree with the sentiment "there may be more to it than just chemicals", but not in the same sense that you meant it. Clearly the light is the product of the flashlight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is "more" than the flashlight.

 

I understand your points. I recognize your analogy. However, since neither of us know whether or not it's veritable, it doesn't really convince me all that much.

It's not my job to convince you

 

And yes, I recognize that my thinking on the matter is still largely speculative (at least speculative within my range of understanding as a former a psych major. The experts might say that I'm pretty much on track), however I will challenge you to ask yourself which line of thinking makes more sense.

 

And I'd dispute the point that the light is 'more' than the flashlight itself. I think it's a product of the components, which is something more.

Feel free to dispute any thing at any time

 

Would you mind expanding on your argument?

 

Again, that's working in the analogy. I personally don't think our brain is as simple as a light bulb.

Neither do I, as the lightbulb is only one component of the flashlight

 

And mine as well. Thanks for reading.

Great post, EW. Thanks for your reply.

[EnderWiggin]

Yes, but you're assuming that we're at the end of that process instead of somewhere in the middle (which is where the expert guess they are, not knowing where the finish line is and all ).

 

I suppose I can't force you to abandon your assumptions, however I will point out that progress is not hitched to your expectations

 

Both good points.

 

Cuddy: "How is it that you always assume you're right?

House: "I don't, I just find it hard to operate on the opposite assumption.

 

That quote comes to mind. It just makes more sense to me that way.

 

It means that I might agree with the sentiment "there may be more to it than just chemicals", but not in the same sense that you meant it. Clearly the light is the product of the flashlight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is "more" than the flashlight.

 

So you're saying you think it might be more than chemicals, but only in the sense that hydrogen and oxygen gas combine with electricity to form water? And you furthermore think that the water is neither more nor less than the hydrogen and oxygen apart from one another? Just trying to clarify for my own sake.

 

It's not my job to convince you

Doesn't stop you from trying

 

And yes, I recognize that my thinking on the matter is still largely speculative (at least speculative within my range of understanding as a former a psych major. The experts might say that I'm pretty much on track), however I will challenge you to ask yourself which line of thinking makes more sense.

[/QUOtE] Didn't realize you were a psych major, but looking back on it (and the fact that you bring up fallacies of logic sometimes) it's a bit more obvious now.

 

I think that the reason we disagree here is the same reason we disagree about religion. You don't believe that there's something bigger out there, and the same is true here. Whereas I believe in God and the belief that love is 'bigger' than the brain itself.

 

Not really sure what the reason actually is, however.

 

Would you mind expanding on your argument?

 

Sure. In my opinion, the light produced by the flashlight is something that is unconnected to the components of the flashlight itself. The components allow the light to be created, but the light itself is something more than just the components - it takes the flow of electrons, which in my eyes, is the higher existence of love that we don't understand.

 

Hmm. Now I'm starting to confuse myself.

 

Neither do I, as the lightbulb is only one component of the flashlight

Semantics. You knew what I meant.

 

Great post, EW. Thanks for your reply.

To you as well.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

So you're saying you think it might be more than chemicals, but only in the sense that hydrogen and oxygen gas combine with electricity to form water? And you furthermore think that the water is neither more nor less than the hydrogen and oxygen apart from one another? Just trying to clarify for my own sake.

I think you might be able to use the word "more" in the context of synergy, but not in the sense of there being something "separate" or "independent" that transcends. I hope that helps to clarify.

 

Didn't realize you were a psych major, but looking back on it (and the fact that you bring up fallacies of logic sometimes) it's a bit more obvious now.

If the topic change to law/criminal justice, or information systems, we can touch on some of my other majors as well

 

I was in school for a looong time before I finally decided what I wanted to be when I grew up.

 

I think that the reason we disagree here is the same reason we disagree about religion. You don't believe that there's something bigger out there, and the same is true here. Whereas I believe in God and the belief that love is 'bigger' than the brain itself.

Probably. The same standards of evidence still apply though. You can't run from them by changing the subject

 

In order to present a viable argument for love being "more", you have to be able to rule out what it is not (much the same way that detective rules out suspects rather than builds a case against just one at the beginning). While intangible explanations aren't really testable (and therefore guesswork by default), explanations that have some foundation in the physical world can be tested and therefore more useful.

 

Sure. In my opinion, the light produced by the flashlight is something that is unconnected to the components of the flashlight itself.

So what happens when you hit the button but the battery is dead? Can you still produce light? (i.e. can a dead person feel love).

 

What about if the bulb is manufactured with a flaw (such as a bad filament) and the flashlight cannot produces light? (i.e. do sociopaths feel love?).

 

If love is more than the product of chemical reactions in the brain and light is more than the product of component in a flashlight, then we should have pretty good explanations for where "love" goes when someone dies or where "light" goes when the juice runs out.

 

The components allow the light to be created, but the light itself is something more than just the components - it takes the flow of electrons, which in my eyes, is the higher existence of love that we don't understand.

We have evidence for electrons

 

Try again

 

Semantics. You knew what I meant.

Indeed I did, but I think you may have missed my meaning

[EnderWiggin]

I think you might be able to use the word "more" in the context of synergy, but not in the sense of there being something "separate" or "independent" that transcends. I hope that helps to clarify.

 

I think I agree.

 

If the topic change to law/criminal justice, or information systems, we can touch on some of my other majors as well

I was in school for a looong time before I finally decided what I wanted to be when I grew up.

 

All three interesting fields.

 

Probably. The same standards of evidence still apply though. You can't run from them by changing the subject

 

In order to present a viable argument for love being "more", you have to be able to rule out what it is not (much the same way that detective rules out suspects rather than builds a case against just one at the beginning). While intangible explanations aren't really testable (and therefore guesswork by default), explanations that have some foundation in the physical world can be tested and therefore more useful.

 

For right now, I'm going to have to let this be. I realize what you're saying about burden of proof, but I'm going to go to bed now instead.

 

So what happens when you hit the button but the battery is dead? Can you still produce light? (i.e. can a dead person feel love).

 

Ready for this cop out? I think that once a person dies, their soul doesn't need the earthly components of the brain to produce the 'light' of love.

 

What about if the bulb is manufactured with a flaw (such as a bad filament) and the flashlight cannot produces light? (i.e. do sociopaths feel love?).

 

IMHO, they do - it's just flawed.

 

If love is more than the product of chemical reactions in the brain and light is more than the product of component in a flashlight, then we should have pretty good explanations for where "love" goes when someone dies or where "light" goes when the juice runs out.

.... I'll work on this later.

 

We have evidence for electrons

 

Try again

 

Hmm. I feel like we were talking in an analogy, and you totally ruined it. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I don't think it's relevant.

 

Maybe you could explain further, however the counterargument "no" just doesn't resonate with me all that well.

 

Indeed I did, but I think you may have missed my meaning

 

Well then. Please enlighten me.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

Ready for this cop out? I think that once a person dies, their soul doesn't need the earthly components of the brain to produce the 'light' of love.

Okay, but where does it go? What evidence do you have that it goes there?

 

IMHO, they do - it's just flawed.

That's fine too, but what does the research say?

 

Nevermind. Scratch that. Let's ignore what the research says and instead focus on why you think it's flawed. Because god infuses them with love differently or because they have some physiological abnormality? If we can show that all sociopathic people share a physiological abnormality, is it more likely that this is just a bizarre coincidence or might we feel comfortable proceeding with our research as though a causal relationship might exist?

 

... I'll work on this later.

Okay.

 

Hmm. I feel like we were talking in an analogy, and you totally ruined it. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I don't think it's relevant.

I took your comment to mean that just as electricity powers the lightbulb to create light, god powers the soul to create love (or something like that). My point was we have evidence for electricity (and by way of comparison, we do not have evidence for god).

 

Rest well. Talk to you later.

[Jae Onasi]

I'm sure it's possible there are other chemicals and horomones involved as well.

Possible? Try estrogen, testosterone, dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline/norepinephrine, vasopressin....However, chemistry levels alone are inadequate to explain love. If that were the case, if we had the same chemistry levels we would expect people to exhibit the same level of love. You can have people with the same amounts of brain chemicals, but they aren't going to experience emotions or love the same way. That's because the brain pathways, the neuroanatomy, is laid down differently in each individual's brain. The neuroanatomy has as much an influence as the chemicals, and possibly more. Let me give you an eye example since I know that best. Children develop 'lazy eye', or amblyopia, because early in life the eye did not receive a clear picture. That could be because of a cataract, a turned eye that didn't allow the picture to focus on the macula (which is the part of the retina where we normally have our best vision), or a very different prescription in that eye so that the picture in that eye was always blurred. In order for the vision centers in the brain to develop properly, there has to be a clear picture coming from the eye. For reasons we don't completely understand yet, the clear picture allows the neurons to branch out and make more connections with other neurons. The more branches we have, the better our vision becomes as our brains mature. People with one normal eye and one amblyopic eye have a normal amount of neuronal branching in the visual centers for that eye, and a much lower amount of branching in the part of the brain that handles the amblyopic eye. So in this case, the brain chemicals are the same for both eyes, but the neuroanatomy is not, and the resultant vision is not. In the case of love, 2 people could have the same exact amount of neurochemicals, but they aren't going to have the same level of love if their brain anatomy is different.

 

Why not? On what basis can you objectively rule out these other factors (which you would have to do in order to establish that there is "more")?

Minnesota twin study. Identical twins, who have the same genetic makeup and very similar environmental influences if raised together, and thus would have nearly identical anatomy, physiology and biochemistry, are no more likely to pick similar mates than random pairs of non-twins. If they experienced love identically or nearly so, they would pick similar mates.

Perhaps being exposed to affection (love isn't a tangible thing) helps the emotional centers in the brain to develop. If that were the case, then that would explain why affection and bonding are critical to child development while keeping it within the explorable boundaries of biochemistry and anatomy, would it not?

I don't know that I'd separate affection and love--I think affection is a level of love. Can you show true affection without loving someone?

 

While that is lovely, I wonder why I should consider Paul an authority on love.

Why do we need to be 'an authority' to be able to express our thoughts and feelings about love? Do PhDs know anything more about love than the rest of us who have experienced it? I've seen kids who are able to show love to others better than some college professors.

 

I don't know about that

It's my opinion on it.

 

Empathy, duty, and even ego are explanations as well.

What is empathy, but love for humanity allowing you to put yourself in their shoes? What is duty, but love for one's country/freedom/family/ideal? What is ego, but love for oneself?

 

The reasoning seems circular, but I like the image that the sentiment creates. Thanks for sharing it!

It would appear circular stating it that way. Any number of medical and marriage studies show that giving and receiving love both are necessary for personal (physical, mental, and psychological) and marital health. Humanity needs love, we as individuals need to give and receive love. Perhaps love isn't subject to the sterile emotionless rules on circular logic.

 

 

Flashlights--they're just vehicles for changing electrical energy to light energy (or chemical to electrical to light if you're including batteries). All the flashlight did was convert one type of energy (electric or electrochemical) to another type (electromagnetic energy) that our eyes happen to be able perceive. It's also an inadequate analogy for the brain.

 

We're in the middle of our understanding of brain? Hubel and Wiesel have done a lot of work on the visual cortex and visual processing. What did they get their Nobel prize for in '81? They received it for learning how cats and monkeys are able to perceive the orientation of one single line. We're just starting to learn how genetics code pigments in the eye incorrectly leading to color blindness, or how genetics incorrectly code a chemical in retinal cells that lead to the development of retinitis pigmentosa. We still don't completely understand how the brain processes color vision, binocular vision/depth perception, or how it takes all these lines from the ocular dominance columns and actually turn those into what we perceive as 'sailboat' vs. 'book' vs. 'dad'. We still don't completely understand all the biochemistry, neuroanatomy, or electrophysiology. We've learned a lot, but we have so much farther to travel than the distance we've already covered.

[Achilles]

Possible? Try estrogen, testosterone, dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline/norepinephrine, vasopressin....However, chemistry levels alone are inadequate to explain love.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this is true.

 

If that were the case, if we had the same chemistry levels we would expect people to exhibit the same level of love.

The reasoning seems sound. How would we measure love though? Kinda makes it tough to test your hypothesis

 

You can have people with the same amounts of brain chemicals, but they aren't going to experience emotions or love the same way.

While this is probably true, I'd like to know what evidence you have to back up your assertion. If this experience is completely subjective, then I'm sure it's possible that two people could experience it the same way. Even if they don't, how do we measure differentiation? How do we determine what degree of variation is statistically significant? Is knowing any of this even slightly important? If your answer is "no", then I have to ask why you would choose to pick that battle by presenting this argument.

 

That's because the brain pathways, the neuroanatomy, is laid down differently in each individual's brain. The neuroanatomy has as much an influence as the chemicals, and possibly more.

Yet somehow we all manage to associate "smiling" with "happy", etc.

 

In the case of love, 2 people could have the same exact amount of neurochemicals, but they aren't going to have the same level of love if their brain anatomy is different.

Just so I'm understanding this correctly, are you positing that the variation in "love" of two "normal" people is as pronounced as someone with two normal eyes compared to someone with a lazy eye?

 

Surely people that that have two normal eyes have roughly the same development process even though their brains are not precisely the same in every way, right?

 

Minnesota twin study. Identical twins, who have the same genetic makeup and very similar environmental influences if raised together, and thus would have nearly identical anatomy, physiology and biochemistry, are no more likely to pick similar mates than random pairs of non-twins. If they experienced love identically or nearly so, they would pick similar mates.

I'm afraid the example does not address the question. Nothing here rules out naturally occurring physical processes (which was the argument that you made when you said that it had to be more than naturally occurring physical processes).

 

I don't know that I'd separate affection and love--I think affection is a level of love. Can you show true affection without loving someone?

Sticking with the example I provided, yes I would argue that newborns are not instinctually affectionate. They instinctually know to be close to us, etc, but that isn't the same thing. Case in point: I'm sure you remember the first time that your children gave you a hug or a kiss. By demonstrating the behavior for our offspring, their development is affected (much the way you outlined with lazy eyes vs non-lazy eyes above), and they subsequently learn how to be affectional/feel love.

 

Why do we need to be 'an authority' to be able to express our thoughts and feelings about love? Do PhDs know anything more about love than the rest of us who have experienced it? I've seen kids who are able to show love to others better than some college professors.

You were the one that presented his comments as though they should have some significance. If you find the words of a child or someone with a Ph.D more profound, then perhaps you should have posted those instead (however I'd probably ask for their qualifications as well).

 

It's my opinion on it.

Fair enough

 

What is empathy, but love for humanity allowing you to put yourself in their shoes?

Love is not prerequisite for empathy. Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another shoes. Whether love is a motivation for doing so or not is a completely separate question. Have you ever noticed that incredibly manipulative people tend to be pretty empathetic?

 

What is duty, but love for one's country/freedom/family/ideal?

Sometimes duty is just duty. Sometimes it is motivated by love but sometimes it is motivated by a the knowledge that failure to perform one's duty will result in harm, punishment, loss of prestiege, etc.

 

What is ego, but love for oneself?

While ego can lead to narcissism, that isn't always the case. If ego (or being the big shot) can motivate someone to act selflessly then I don't think your example applies.

 

It would appear circular stating it that way. Any number of medical and marriage studies show that giving and receiving love both are necessary for personal (physical, mental, and psychological) and marital health. Humanity needs love, we as individuals need to give and receive love. Perhaps love isn't subject to the sterile emotionless rules on circular logic.

Indeed it makes a great deal of sense that if we developed emotional centers in the brain that relationships that stimulated those centers would be preferable.

 

The argument that we have love because we need love because we have love (because we need love because we...) seems circular. Again, I could also just be missing something in the translation too, which is why I said "seems" before.

 

Flashlights--they're just vehicles for changing electrical energy to light energy (or chemical to electrical to light if you're including batteries). All the flashlight did was convert one type of energy (electric or electrochemical) to another type (electromagnetic energy) that our eyes happen to be able perceive.

Brains--they're just highly evolved nerve centers capable of transmitting and interpreting a vast number of signal which are transmitted via chemical reactions. All the brain has done is register a certain chemical reaction in one region and associate it with a physiological response that current language happens to associate with the word "love". It works when I do it too

 

It's also an inadequate analogy for the brain.

Why is that? We have physical components and chemical reactions. The two working together are capable of producing something that is not "inherent" (not sure what word to use here) to the components or the ingredients themselves (consciousness, emotions, light, etc.). I'm rather fond of the analogy and would hate to get rid of it, however if it truly does not work, then I need to find a new one ASAP.

 

We're in the middle of our understanding of brain? Hubel and Wiesel have done a lot of work on the visual cortex and visual processing. What did they get their Nobel prize for in '81? They received it for learning how cats and monkeys are able to perceive the orientation of one single line. We're just starting to learn how genetics code pigments in the eye incorrectly leading to color blindness, or how genetics incorrectly code a chemical in retinal cells that lead to the development of retinitis pigmentosa. We still don't completely understand how the brain processes color vision, binocular vision/depth perception, or how it takes all these lines from the ocular dominance columns and actually turn those into what we perceive as 'sailboat' vs. 'book' vs. 'dad'. We still don't completely understand all the biochemistry, neuroanatomy, or electrophysiology. We've learned a lot, but we have so much farther to travel than the distance we've already covered.

This part of your post is simply awesome. Thanks for helping to keep our current progress in perspective.

[Totenkopf]

Love is not prerequisite for empathy. Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another shoes. Whether love is a motivation for doing so or not is a completely separate question. Have you ever noticed that incredibly manipulative people tend to be pretty empathetic?

 

If empathy is little more than the ability to place yourself in another's shoes, what value as a basis for a moral code? One could easily imagine themself in someone else's postion and still do horrible things to that person, manipulating even themselves into rationalizing their own behavior.

 

While ego can lead to narcissism, that isn't always the case. If ego (or being the big shot) can motivate someone to act selflessly then I don't think your example applies.

 

If ego is the motivation, then it's entirely all too possible that the act only appears selfless to the uninformed.