Love

[ita]

All I know is that love is the most awesome feeling ever and that's really all I need to know, why do people insist on ruining things by getting all scientific and stuff 8)

[marharth]

Any psychological stuff that has to do with love can be explained by evolution though.

 

I simply think its more likely it can be explained by science one day and I doubt it will never be explained by science. I don't know why that opinion is so controversial.

[kvnchrist]

I'm just going to let this thing go. It's not even worth my effort any more. You guys have a great day and I appreciate your patience and your replies

[Dicecaster]

Okay, I read through part of page 3, and I had to skip to the end so I could say something; if it has already been said, however, forgive me.

 

Now, marharth has made it painfully clear that love is a biological phenomenon that can be explained by science. This does NOT mean that it can't be a deep thing. None of the posts I have read (again, read above) other than marharth's give a shred of evidence supporting anything he/she is saying, it's just giving opinions. If this is to be a debate (as opposed to an argument) there must be reasoning behind the debaters' ideas, or else it's just pointless talk.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Dicecaster

[Aurielius]

Okay, I read through part of page 3, and I had to skip to the end so I could say something; if it has already been said, however, forgive me.

 

Now, marharth has made it painfully clear that love is a biological phenomenon that can be explained by science. This does NOT mean that it can't be a deep thing. None of the posts I have read (again, read above) other than marharth's give a shred of evidence supporting anything he/she is saying, it's just giving opinions. If this is to be a debate (as opposed to an argument) there must be reasoning behind the debaters' ideas, or else it's just pointless talk.

 

Love is an intangible proving it is like proving faith, what coherent argument would suit your Grace?

[Dicecaster]

Okay, I read through part of page 3, and I had to skip to the end so I could say something; if it has already been said, however, forgive me.

 

Now, marharth has made it painfully clear that love is a biological phenomenon that can be explained by science. This does NOT mean that it can't be a deep thing. None of the posts I have read (again, read above) other than marharth's give a shred of evidence supporting anything he/she is saying, it's just giving opinions. If this is to be a debate (as opposed to an argument) there must be reasoning behind the debaters' ideas, or else it's just pointless talk.

 

Love is an intangible proving it is like proving faith, what coherent argument would suit your Grace?

What do you mean "proving it"? Proving its existence?

[Aurielius]

What do you mean "proving it"? Proving its existence?

I think that the existence of Love is de facto and debating that point is moot. There is however a confusion on this thread between attraction / lust and love. The former pair might be put down to audio visual and pheromone input but the actual emotion of love is far more complex and subjective and not the least bit scientifically analyzable. One might meet a set of identical twins and be attracted to both on a physiological level but it is doubtful that one would fall in love with both, that is the province of emotional and intellectual attraction and development which is entirely subjective to the individual. If love , real love could be reduced to a set of scientific principles or pharmacological responses then do you not think that the mega corps would be hard at development drugs? Love is something that is unique to sentient beings and in my opinion not confined to our species alone. There is the story of the Border Collie whose master / friend died and though ( the dog) was adopted after, she spent every day at the grave site of her deceased master ( rain or shine) for over ten years and would then return to her new home at the end of the day. They erected a statue to the dog in the Scottish town of her residence.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Aurielius

[Dicecaster]

What do you mean "proving it"? Proving its existence?

I think that the existence of Love is de facto and debating that point is moot. There is however a confusion on this thread between attraction / lust and love. The former pair might be put down to audio visual and pheromone input but the actual emotion of love is far more complex and subjective and not the least bit scientifically analyzable. One might meet a set of identical twins and be attracted to both on a physiological level but it is doubtful that one one fall in love with both, that is the province of emotional and intellectual attraction and development which is entirely subjective to the individual. If love , real love could be reduced to a set of scientific principles or pharmacological responses then do you not think that the mega corps would be hard at development drugs? Love is something that is unique to sentient beings and in my opinion not confined to our species alone. There is the story of the Border Collie whose master / friend died and though ( the dog) was adopted after, she spent every day at the grave site of her deceased master ( rain or shine) for over ten years and would then return to her new home at the end of the day. They erected a statue to the dog in the Scottish town of her residence.

Most believe that people have souls (I certainly do). Let us assume that this is fact. If this is the case, then it's definitely arguable that the body is a means by which the soul interacts with the physical world. Supposing this is truth, love could be an emotion that the person (the soul) feels, and the body could interpret it with a set of chemical reactions*. This is just an example (I have no idea if this is fact or not), but I would hope that this illustrates my point: it is possible for love (not lust, love) to be a deep emotion as well as a scientifically analyzable phenomenon. I disagree with marharth in that I believe it to be more than simply a biological process, but I disagree with other posters in that it's entirely possible for it to be a biological process as well.

[Kuraikiba]

Gee, even reading "Theory and Practice in Experimental Bacteriology" was more romantic than this topic.

 

If I recall, the point was not to make this about science. Were science, logic, and reason the basis of love, love would not have it's unbelievable effects. Mental signals mean nothing, they can be totally ignored. Pain, heat, cold, pressure, drug addiction, emotion... these are all among the most powerful influences there can be on the mind. Yet each and every one can be completely blocked out. I know from experience four of those can.

 

Love, however, regardless of effort, does not seem resistible. The most powerful chemicals and influence of the brain can be ignored even if they flood you. Yet love is nearly impossible to ignore. Every one of the previous things I've mentioned has been completely overcome with relative easy by many. How, then, could love be almost impossible to ignore?

[marharth]

How, then, could love be almost impossible to ignore?

See what happens if you don't eat for a month.

 

Human love is more advanced then other animals, we have evolved past simple reproduction.

 

Love is still a human necessity. That includes attraction and bonding. It is pretty much psychologically necessary for humans to communicate with each other.