Love

[marharth]

I am seriously trying to figure out how you guys can't understand that it will likely be explained by science at a later date. Just because we don't understand it completely right now does not mean its magic. We already have a basic idea on why it happens.

 

 

Since everyone is so fond of ignoring the other thing I brought up, I will type it again. A long time ago we had no idea why weather happened, but some people had a basic idea. Over time we were able to develop that and eventually fully understand it. There is no reason this won't happen with love and brain science.

 

I don't wish the truth to be dark and cold, the truth IS dark and cold.

Edited August 2, 2011 by marharth

[LadyMilla]

You are the one trumpeting logic as the sole tool to get to your findings and science the sole explanation for love. Please don't try to spin this, when everybody can read you responses here. I am not the one that hails science as the end all and tell all. Which is goes right along with the statement that you quoted from the Now closed topic. Nice try anyway.

 

Again, you accuse me of something that you do yourself. You try to twist and misinterpret my words but you fail miserably.

 

I'm not trumpeting logic. Unlike you, I'm accepting the possibility that there may be a scientific explanation, something that you stubbornly refuse. I've never said that science is the only explanation. Please go back and read again but I'm afraid I'm wasting my breath because you decided to invent a language that somehow lends a different meaning to my words so I let the readers decide:

 

This is what I said:

 

Just because you cannot explain something that you experience, it does not mean there is no scientific explanation: probably at the moment it is beyond our grasp.

 

I spoke about probability. Not certainty. I'm sure the difference is crystal clear for everybody else who is not distracted by your ramblings and your feeble attempts to twist my words into something else.

 

You claim that I trumpet logic. When it comes to scientific matters, I do value logic although science cannot rely on logic alone. Proof, verifiability... just a few other things that science employs. Not to mention that science is not a tool that you can use to extract 'truth' from our existence. Science produces theories that either work and explain the 'how', or that are replaced by theories that are less wrong than the previous one.

 

But let's get to the next 'gem' in this alleged debate:

 

You guys tried to turn a very beautiful thing into the equivalent of culture growing in a petri dish.

 

The above coming from the same person who said in one of the previous posts:

 

There is no mystery or magic in love. This is only romanticizing the issue.

 

Ahem... I leave it to the readers to evaluate the consistency of your views. First you accuse me of romanticizing the issue. Then you accuse me to ruin something beautiful by referring it to the exclusive competence of science (which, again, is just a failed attempt to put words in my mouths that I did not even say).

 

I repeat myself, If love begins and ends in the brain, then scientist could very well artificially introduce the same chemicals into the brain, while showing the individual a picture of animal excrement and the person would fall in love with it. Love has to have a target for love to begin. The chemicals introduced into the brain after that is the reaction to love, not it's cause.

 

The target is needed. You don't fall in love in general - that is true. But love is not something that emanates from the person you see and infects you in some way. It's something you feel in your heart if you prefer a more poetical approach. But no, you don't prefer poetical approach because, as you said, there is no mystery or magic in love. The girl you see is the trigger. It is your brain that 'decides' to respond to that trigger with love, affection, indifference, dislike or revulsion. This is why another person reacts differently to the sight of the same girl. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Love is in the eye of the lover. I do not even need logic to refute your claim. It is something that we experience every day.

 

[kvnchrist]

 

The target is needed. You don't fall in love in general - that is true. But love is not something that emanates from the person you see and infects you in some way. It's something you feel in your heart if you prefer a more poetical approach. But no, you don't prefer poetical approach because, as you said, there is no mystery or magic in love. The girl you see is the trigger. It is your brain that 'decides' to respond to that trigger with love, affection, indifference, dislike or revulsion. This is why another person reacts differently to the sight of the same girl. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Love is in the eye of the lover. I do not even need logic to refute your claim. It is something that we experience every day.

 

 

What the heck are you talking about. You just repeated what I just said and then stated you don't need logic to refute me. How many times do I have to tell you that love needs a trigger, before love is initiated. The brain only responds to what it perceives. The effects on the body comes after. That's where you get the euphoria. Your claim was the entire episode imitates from inside the brain, which to me is false.

[LadyMilla]

What the heck are you talking about. You just repeated what I just said and then stated you don't need logic to refute me. How many times do I have to tell you that love needs a trigger, before love is initiated. The brain only responds to what it perceives. The effects on the body comes after. That's where you get the euphoria. Your claim was the entire episode imitates from inside the brain, which to me is false.

 

Maybe you should phrase your opinion a bit more accurately (Don't get me wrong I'm not claiming to be the pinnacle of consistency or accuracy either).

 

This is what you wrote:

 

Emotions come from what occurs outside of the body, not inside of it. You can't produce love, unless there is a target for that love.

 

If you meant that the outside effects are just initiators and not the source of emotion (source, meaning that they somehow implant the feeling in your brain) then finally, we can come to an agreement (not a full agreement but at least something we both accept). But I do not think the target must be an external entity in every case: have you ever heard about imaginary lovers? Artists who fell in love with their imaginary source of inspiration called Muse? Children feeling affection for their imaginary friends? Of course, they are all targets but they are not external. Then there is the thing called: 'love at first sight'. You see somebody, maybe you do not even talk to her but on the next day you find that you cannot stop thinking about her (or him, works both ways). In that case, you have effectively fallen in love with an ideal with a real face attached to it because you do not know that person. Do you deny that in that case, even though the trigger is external, the love you feel is mostly for an ideal, an imaginary being that is slowly dispelled (or transformed, if you prefer) as you come to know the real person (and sometimes disillusionment ensues and love vanishes).

 

Also, I'm not talking about serotonin induced euphoria - that's something that is produced after you start to feel love. I'm talking about the proteins that store our memories, experiences and ideas in our brain. In order for the brain to use those memories and experiences, the proteins have to react with other molecules to release the stored information. This is what I meant when I talked about chemical reactions. Science has already find a way to erase specific memories (source). This led me to believe that science may find a way to unravel love and meddle with it. Did I say that it is desirable? No. But the possibility is still there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kvnchrist]

What the heck are you talking about. You just repeated what I just said and then stated you don't need logic to refute me. How many times do I have to tell you that love needs a trigger, before love is initiated. The brain only responds to what it perceives. The effects on the body comes after. That's where you get the euphoria. Your claim was the entire episode imitates from inside the brain, which to me is false.

 

Maybe you should phrase your opinion a bit more accurately (Don't get me wrong I'm not claiming to be the pinnacle of consistency or accuracy either).

 

This is what you wrote:

 

Emotions come from what occurs outside of the body, not inside of it. You can't produce love, unless there is a target for that love.

 

If you meant that the outside effects are just initiators and not the source of emotion (source, meaning that they somehow implant the feeling in your brain) then finally, we can come to an agreement (not a full agreement but at least something we both accept). But I do not think the target must be an external entity in every case: have you ever heard about imaginary lovers? Artists who fell in love with their imaginary source of inspiration called Muse? Children feeling affection for their imaginary friends? Of course, they are all targets but they are not external. Then there is the thing called: 'love at first sight'. You see somebody, maybe you do not even talk to her but on the next day you find that you cannot stop thinking about her (or him, works both ways). In that case, you have effectively fallen in love with an ideal with a real face attached to it because you do not know that person. Do you deny that in that case, even though the trigger is external, the love you feel is mostly for an ideal, an imaginary being that is slowly dispelled (or transformed, if you prefer) as you come to know the real person (and sometimes disillusionment ensues and love vanishes).

 

Also, I'm not talking about serotonin induced euphoria - that's something that is produced after you start to feel love. I'm talking about the proteins that store our memories, experiences and ideas in our brain. In order for the brain to use those memories and experiences, the proteins have to react with other molecules to release the stored information. This is what I meant when I talked about chemical reactions. Science has already find a way to erase specific memories (source). This led me to believe that science may find a way to unravel love and meddle with it. Did I say that it is desirable? No. But the possibility is still there.

 

I've been talking about the brain reacting to an outside source, since this whole thing started. Every time I did, someone comes back with a rebuttal and I have to try and word my answer differently so i might better be understood. I don't really want to discuss why the government might want to reproduce effects of the mind. That's what it'll all boils down too, in the end. If they find a way to do that, then they will finally have the robots that they've always wanted, in us.

[Sync182]

marharth...you should really read what Lady Milla has posted recently.

 

And I don't mean read as in look at the words; I mean read, as in comprehend.

[marharth]

marharth...you should really read what Lady Milla has posted recently.

 

And I don't mean read as in look at the words; I mean read, as in comprehend.

 

You do realize that I agree completely with LadyMilla right?

[Vagrant0]

I am seriously trying to figure out how you guys can't understand that it will likely be explained by science at a later date. Just because we don't understand it completely right now does not mean its magic. We already have a basic idea on why it happens.

 

 

Since everyone is so fond of ignoring the other thing I brought up, I will type it again. A long time ago we had no idea why weather happened, but some people had a basic idea. Over time we were able to develop that and eventually fully understand it. There is no reason this won't happen with love and brain science.

 

I don't wish the truth to be dark and cold, the truth IS dark and cold.

You know... You are only seeing one side to the equation here... You are looking at the result with ignoring the complicated bits related to the stimulus that trigger those chemicals being released. Yes, the reaction is easy to replicate in absence of the stimulus, but the important part is the stimulus. The stimulus is important because it has a social, personal, and sometimes genetic basis to it, and cannot easily be replicated. You don't love someone just because chemicals make you happy around them (as often you still love them when you're fighting with them), but because you like how they look, act, or who they are. There is also a different sort of love for family than there is for a sexual interest than there is for a pet or car (usually)... Yet, it's still considered love. Sure, there might be a chemical base to it, but there is also a psychosocial one. And even though that psychosocial one is also chemically based (since it all happens in the brain), what makes it special is the mystery of it all. As soon as you start to explain that away, it just cheapens the experience and leaves everything to be exploited by others. Sometimes, it's better for everyone to keep the genie in the bottle.

 

What I mean is this... Brain chemistry is such that if you had it figured out perfectly, you could pretty much decide what that person enjoys, who they are fond of, what beliefs they hold dear, and how to behave... turning them into little more than biological robots. At some point, science like this ceases to be ethical or for the best interest of humanity. Some people seem to forget or ignore this point in their quest for fame and greed.

[grannywils]

That's what I'm talkin' about! lol

[Lehcar]

'Tis a feeling triggered by a variety of chemicals and receptors mixing around inside your brain. There's no way to know if we are the only animals that feel it (or not, though I doubt we are). It the truest sense, it only is what we perceive it to be.