Love

[marharth]

Your "point" was completely ad hominem, claiming that because of who we are, (people who allegedly have not experienced love,) that our points are invalid. You've forfeit, drop it. Let's try not to derail this thread further.

To forfeit one must concede or not show up for the match, I've done neither. You might want to stop declaring premature victory until the other team leaves the field. The point was an observation about experience with Love and up to this point no one introduced familial love except you. Everyone loves their mother or should so leave that bit of inanity out of this. A general observation cannot be considered an attack except by the most thin skinned of individuals, which it seems may be somewhat applicable to some. It seems that mis citing forum rules and protocols is your province not mine, there is a remedy called the report button if you are so certain of your position use it. My observation stands, if one has not had the experience of deep interpersonal love be it heterosexual or other then their credentials are suspect, their opinions are conjecture not based on experience.

There is a difference between a observation and a assumption. You had no idea (and still have no idea) if some people on this forum have had that experience.

Fine, then let them make and support their claim to experience along with their contention that it is an concept that is reducible to scientific analysis. I have already stated my level of experience, but for the record I have been married for thirty five years to someone who is my soul mate. So would you like to state your level of experience, since you are among the lead contenders of the scientific analysis group. This should be interesting.

Do you not understand that it has nothing to do with experience or the effects of love?

 

How many times do I have to say we are talking about the causes? What does the effects of love have to do with it?

 

Your experience does nothing to support your argument that the causes of love are different since your experience only relates to the effect.

 

Since you seem to want to ignore the posts before me that explain brain science, I will go ahead and post them in my post.

 

First off, let me give help you understand what science is, since many of you seem to think that science is a group of evil lab coated love haters.

 

"If love can be observed and tested, then Science can find patterns and better understand it. That's all Science is, an attempt to understand the world around us. It has no preconceived notions. Scientists don't claim to have all the answers to everything, and it's not about knowing everything, it's about knowing what we can. "

 

Now that that is out of the way, I will point out the functions that cause love.

 

For a simple explanation.

"Everything that you see, hear, feel, smell and taste is a series of electrical impulses fed into your brain, presumably by receptors in your body. The image of your wife is a series of electrical impulses, the feeling of giving birth to your child, the feeling of pushing and pain, the smell of the clothes that your dead family members leave behind, every last one is an electrical impulse into the brain which then deciphers these impulses into "experience." Your brain in turn analyzes the experience, and recognizes that you just gave birth to someone or you found an attractive person with whome you can identify. Somewhere along the line your brain categorizes people you have seen and applies a series of values to them. Those with high values we call love. A series of electrical impulses over a long or short period of time interpreted by your brain. "

 

"Love, emotions... they are part of the 'functionality' of our brain. The brain responds to external stimuli in the form of electric impulse patterns traveling within the network of neurons (the impulses may be carried by neurotransmitters -- chemicals -- or so called action potentials). These patterns are a result of a long evolution process but they are not beyond the realm of physics or chemistry, and as such they can be tracked, studied, and interpreted. It is an extremely complicated network, and -- as far as I know - it is still the least known part of the human physiology but claiming that science will *never* unravel how the various parts of the brain function and how and what neurons are responsible for what emotion is, in my opinion, just an attempt to push the concept into some hazy metaphysical realm that is beyond the reach of our instruments.

 

Unfortunately, contrary to what you believe, it is the reaction of your brain with all the chemical and electrical interactions that you experience as love, hatred, fear and other emotions. There is no romantic metaphysical "prime mover" that sets these reactions in motion. It is the motion of those patterns of electric potentials that is e-motion (was that a pun? Definitely not intentional). Obviously, the experience is unique but still it is firmly rooted in our reality, which is the playground of science. Science has its own limits, still, I believe the brain and its processes are within those limits. The brain is not a chaotic system (on the contrary, if it were a chaotic, unorganized mess, it would not function), neither is it a quantum system where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would limit your ability to measure things. So, I think, the jury is still out on this one."

 

Now that you can read the posts that were made before that you seemed to ignore, I would like to see a real response instead of you constantly claiming your experience trumps all.

Edited August 24, 2011 by marharth

[Aurielius]

Marharth I was not ignoring the preceding posts I simply responded to what I elected to contend, much as you consistently do. Though it is intriguing that you wouldn't take me up on my request for some elucidation of experience on the subject that isn't academic. If you have never been in love, then it's like a deaf man analyzing the music of Bach and describing it as all vibrations. If you have been in love then say so, if not..well then.

[marharth]

Marharth I was not ignoring the preceding posts I simply responded to what I elected to contend, much as you consistently do. Though it is intriguing that you wouldn't take me up on my request for some elucidation of experience on the subject that isn't academic. If you have never been in love, then it's like a deaf man analyzing the music of Bach and describing it as all vibrations. If you have been in love then say so, if not..well then.

If you were not ignoring previous posts you would have noticed my previous posts were I already responded to that question.

[Aurielius]

Marharth I was not ignoring the preceding posts I simply responded to what I elected to contend, much as you consistently do. Though it is intriguing that you wouldn't take me up on my request for some elucidation of experience on the subject that isn't academic. If you have never been in love, then it's like a deaf man analyzing the music of Bach and describing it as all vibrations. If you have been in love then say so, if not..well then.

If you were not ignoring previous posts you would have noticed my previous posts were I already responded to that question.

Actually I have read reviewed your posts one more time just to be positive, you have yet to respond to the question unambiguously whether you have any experience in the subject. You have dodged the question but have made no statement of fact. So unless you want to be forthcoming, I must assume the negative to my query.

[marharth]

Marharth I was not ignoring the preceding posts I simply responded to what I elected to contend, much as you consistently do. Though it is intriguing that you wouldn't take me up on my request for some elucidation of experience on the subject that isn't academic. If you have never been in love, then it's like a deaf man analyzing the music of Bach and describing it as all vibrations. If you have been in love then say so, if not..well then.

If you were not ignoring previous posts you would have noticed my previous posts were I already responded to that question.

Actually I have read reviewed your posts one more time just to be positive, you have yet to respond to the question unambiguously whether you have any experience in the subject. You have dodged the question but have made no statement of fact. So unless you want to be forthcoming, I must assume the negative to my query.

To answer your question, yes I have had that experience.

 

That experience has nothing to do with the cause.

Edited August 24, 2011 by marharth

[Ghogiel]

:facepalm: at whole

 

You really should look up the definition of 'ad hominen', it requires a personal reference which was absent from my post but evidently not yours. don't quote the rules while transgressing them yourself it makes your thesis very weak. If this is the best you can do then with baiting then it's not going to work.

 

Your post was in direct reply to dranconix, you quoted him. If you meant someone else, perhaps quote them instead.

 

I suppose you will deny you were actually making a direct response to draconix and his scientific approach, somehow separating him from everyone else of that similar approach to whom you were definitely addressing, are you truthfully excluding him from this group?

 

My observation stands, if one has not had the experience of deep interpersonal love be it heterosexual or other then their credentials are suspect, their opinions are conjecture not based on experience.

That is NOT your original observation. You insult me with your blatant deception. This is your observation:

The only conclusion I can come to from the 'love is scientifically' explainable crowd is that they have yet to have had the true experience, the madness, the joy, the depths of despair and the peaks of fulfillment that comes with finding your true soul mate. I pity you, because that has been the goal of most of humanity since time immemorial.

 

On what planet do those 2 statements mean the same thing?

 

 

A general observation cannot be considered an attack except by the most thin skinned of individuals,

It is clear in it's intent. To devalue anyone's experience of love who takes any sort of rational scientific approach to it. Reducing anyone who takes a scientific approach, which is but one of many valid ways to look at the subject, :thumbsup:, and saying that all of them know nothing of true love.

 

What I don't understand is what has one thing got to do with the other? WHY would you think that anyone who, at any given moment looks at the subject for a second with the logic or science spectacles on, has suddenly never experienced love. It makes no sense. It's a terrible assumption to make of people you know nothing about.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ghogiel

[brokenergy]

If you are talking about it in a scientific point of view (i.e no metaphysical description), then love is a series of sensation caused by chemical reactions (most notably the release of nerve growth factors, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin) which causes the emotions found in "love" such as happy, joy, passion etc.

 

If you want the metaphysical point of view then...

 

 

(this never gets old)

 

So in the end, you never really "felt" love. You just responded to certain stimuli which makes you happy, passionate etc. This is the same way that you respond to certain stimuli when you are in pain, angry or sad. It's all in your brain.

[Aurielius]

Marharth I was not ignoring the preceding posts I simply responded to what I elected to contend, much as you consistently do. Though it is intriguing that you wouldn't take me up on my request for some elucidation of experience on the subject that isn't academic. If you have never been in love, then it's like a deaf man analyzing the music of Bach and describing it as all vibrations. If you have been in love then say so, if not..well then.

If you were not ignoring previous posts you would have noticed my previous posts were I already responded to that question.

Actually I have read reviewed your posts one more time just to be positive, you have yet to respond to the question unambiguously whether you have any experience in the subject. You have dodged the question but have made no statement of fact. So unless you want to be forthcoming, I must assume the negative to my query.

To answer your question, yes I have had that experience.

 

That experience has nothing to do with the cause.

I'm a fair man and will accept your word at face value, which means you have met the criterion I set. So, have you ever explained this theory of love to your young lady?

[marharth]

I'm a fair man and will accept your word at face value, which means you have met the criterion I set. So, have you ever explained this theory of love to your young lady?

Doesn't really have to do much with the topic, and I would hardly call it a theory, but yes we both agree that the cause of love is scientific.

[Aurielius]

I'm a fair man and will accept your word at face value, which means you have met the criterion I set. So, have you ever explained this theory of love to your young lady?

Doesn't really have to do much with the topic, and I would hardly call it a theory, but yes we both agree that the cause of love is scientific.

Then you have a unique young lady.