[unreality]

Love:

Previous discussions:

I didn't know which one to continue so I'm making a new topic.

I'm too young to have felt "love" in a way others on this forum may have but I've felt a lot of other things and I do know that our experience of the world is biological, chemical, electrical, in its base nature. You can read stuff I've written in both of those topics, I still agree with it.

However my point now, to focus on, for those that recognize the electrochemical nature of our consciousness, do you think love in humans is different from love in animals? Why or why not?

And if you don't fall in the above camp (due to religious dogma most likely) then how is your definition of love different from mine and do you think it's an infinite thing?

In other words I want to know if you're a 'love cynic' or a 'love believer' and why And remember that your brain can fool you. If you take MDMA and fall in love with a painting on the wall does that count as love in its special way? lol

Edited August 24, 2010 by unreality

[EDM]

i'll take the DNA bit, but the chemicals.......

true love is from you, not the chemicals........so that's all i'm typing......if you want me to argue...i'm gonna talk....

[Izzy]

Well, okay, think about it in simpler terms. Your body produces adrenaline (a chemical) to give you that extra boost when you need it, right? You can feel the adrenaline, and you know it's a real thing. The thing that determines how much adrenaline is secreted is determined by your genetic material. The same goes for other chemicals in the body, like serotonin and dopamine, that are responsible for the feelings of love. How much of these chemicals you get and when is impacted by your environment, but it's mostly a genetic thing. Like with adrenaline. If you're skiing down a mountain during an avalanche, the environment puts pressure on your body so the adrenaline is released, but over all, how much and how fast is determined by your body.

DNA itself is a chemical compound, so 'nuff said, life's all chemical .

Talk how?

[phaze]

DNA itself is a chemical compound, so 'nuff said, life's all chemical .

:backstab:

I didn't kill Izzy the chemicals made me do it

[Guest]

First of all, its not all chemical, I do believe its also electrical impulses. Here's the thing: It IS your choice, but that choice is made through the chemicals/ electical impulses. These chemicals are part of YOU *points.* Its YOU making the decision, YOU loving the person (or ice cream). This simply happens via the electrical impulses/chemicals. Those chemicals are in YOUR body, and are therefore a part of you. Its still a human nature thing, thought processes, you're not forced to do it, its YOU. And I guess that means Phaze killed Izzy....

Edited August 30, 2010 by NickFleming

[phaze]

Can I be held accountable for it?

[Izzy]

:backstab:

I didn't kill Izzy the chemicals made me do it

*takes Phaze out of context* Them drugs make you kill people, aye boy? Off to the asylum with you..

Nick, chemicals control the impulses as well. YOU are YOUR chemicals, so it's still YOU making the decisions, just not in the way you think..

Eugh, we're venturing into free will again..

Edited August 31, 2010 by Izzy

[phaze]

Eugh, we're venturing into free will again..

Muhahahahahhahaha (sorry, I had to do that, chemical imbalance)

[Izzy]

Phaze is very strange indeed.

[Guest]

Its still a human nature thing, thought processes, you're not forced to do it, its YOU.

Depends on where you think the force would be coming from. I thought this just about summed up the whole topic of free will:

I was reading a book of Richard Feynman's reminiscences and he described being hypnotised for the first time. At some point the hypnotist says to him "You are now unable to open your eyes". Feynman's sitting there thinking "Yeah right, I bet I could open my eyes if I wanted". Trouble is, he's really interested in hypnosis and wants to find out what happens next. He knows if he opens his eyes the jig is up and he won't get to play anymore, so he keeps his eyes closed and plays along. With hindsight he notes that the hypnotist is correct in saying that he cannot open his eyes. The thing stopping him from doing so is curiosity. It turns out he was quite a good subject for hypnosis, which surprised me.

Anyhow, can't resist picking up on...

Some animals mate for life, and this is evolutionarily stupid for the males, considering it downs there chances of reproductive success. Ergo, love!

If love (or male monogamy at least) were not an evolved characteristic, what is it? And if it were evolved, it's pretty unlikely that it would be "evolutionarily stupid". I agree that spreading your seed around is much more advantageous for males than females, but there must be a flip side otherwise males would be doing it universally (rather than just a lot of the time). In my opinion, monogamy is a partial characteristic of human males because of the enormous investment that we make in our children, and the great difference that this can make to the success of those children (which in our evolutionary past may well equate to their survival prospects). If protection, education, and resources from a male parent is going to make the difference between life and death, it is in the genetic interests of the father to put in the effort. That's a lot easier and less stressful if those children all happen to have the same mother.

Counterargument: Ah yes, but if you can manage all of the above and also get a few other women pregnant on the side (even if you don't have time to raise their children), so much the better. Why not? All it costs is a few sperm.

In practice this is made difficult, because generally women don't want to be single mothers, and a man doesn't want to raise the kids of some philanderer in the mistaken belief that they are his. So women look for commitment in a man, and men are always on the lookout to avoid cuckoldry. An "attached" woman has little incentive to be unfaithful, because if she is found out, she may be abandoned. I disagree with Quag that there is a significant advantage to the woman in having genetic "diversification" in her children, it's only relevant if the man was a poor genetic match in the first place, and a lot of the chemical signals that we pick up on in courtship are a way of finding compatible partners. Courtship is generally a considerable investment of time and effort for both partners (it is in the woman's interest to ensure that this is observed since she does not want to bear the children of a poor genetic match, plus a male who puts in the courtship hours is a better bet in terms of commitment). So a male philanderer has to observe the courtship rituals without getting found out and getting his head kicked in, while seeking out women who will either take the risk of cheating on their partners or settle for (or be sweet-talked into) a relationship with no commitment (neither of which is in their genetic interests). Nevertheless, if despite all these difficulties, a man can still manage to put it about, the chances are he will.

So there you go, more aspects of love than you can shake a stick at, all genetically optimal. The key in this case is the advantage of a large paternal investment in raising children. Intensive long-term parental care is more important for humans than probably any other animal. There are cases of monogamy elsewhere in the animal kingdom, but they are a minority and in many of these cases a bit of infidelity tends to occur as well. I would suggest that in most of these cases there will be some key resource, such as a nest, which the male must provide for his young. Male investment makes it advantageous to create monogamous partnerships. Hence love, roses, chick flicks, wedding rings, and all that jazz.

[Guest]

animals love as much as animals

in the case of some animals love more than humans

animals like dogs truly love you no matter what

my question is why do people say they they love more than animals if we kill each other in mass numbers (bombing of Hiroshima)

[peace*out]

Jenny is joining...

Getting this out of the way: I haven't been in "love" before, but I have had crushes as everyone does...hey, I'm 14!!!

I believe that "love at first site" and such is chemical impulses. But as time goes on, and you grow attached and you get to know the other person, that is "Love." Once you are with the other person for an extended amount of time, or you get have everything in common, or it just...FITS, that moves beyond the impulses and chemicals. chemicals are still creating the "love" but it goes beyond that at the same time. its not just "lust" or anything like that anymore...you genually love the person...

just my thoughts...

[peace*out]

I also want to add this...

its in multiple parts, but i saw it, and IMMEDIATLY thought of this discussion

[Guest]

Picking up on an old thread here....

Interesting thoughts about love, especially the part where some think it's totally chemical while others say it has a part where "you" decide...

What happens with couples that trigger that chemical reaction right away (call it love at first sight if you want) and get together in months.... A year later... Split... Did the chemical reaction just stop ocurring? Whose fault is it that the chemical reaction stopped? Did the girl stop emiting the same chemicals that triggered the male or viceversa? If this is "completely" chemical, there should be a way to "stay in love" for eternity, right?

Just something we can keep talking *cough arguing cough* about...

[Guest]

To defend the chemicalists (as I've arbitrarily decided to label them ), I've heard of studies that show that people are drawn to opposites in more ways than one and that includes the pheromones people exude. So why would two people appear attracted to each other and then fall apart? Well, we like to use liberal amounts of perfume and cologne in some parts of the world which in some ways cover up or override our natural pheromones.

So two people who've dated a lot always wearing their best face (and odors) seem compatible, but in reality they might have clashing pheromones that are getting covered up. So when they finally move in together and spend time in each other's company without any of the various cover ups, suddenly the attraction is dulled or even reversed.

My philosophy teacher in high school commented that to really get to know someone, you shouldn't be focusing on how they are on a Friday night date, but how they would be on a Saturday morning. That sounds PG-13ish, but that's not how he meant it. His point was that when you go out on a date (or really when you do anything in public) most people put up a facade. And if people fall in love with each other's facades, they may be in for a rude awakening when they meet the real person.

The real person is revealed by the Saturday morning person. How would you be at 9:00am on a Saturday morning if you had made absolutely no plans for the day? How many people would be up, bright-eyed and dressed to the nines at that time? What he was saying is that it's far more important to know what the person really is like underneath (how they would behave on a lazy Saturday morning) than how they present themselves on a Friday night date. So that's a couple of reasons for break-ups and the like.

[Guest]

To defend the chemicalists (as I've arbitrarily decided to label them ), I've heard of studies that show that people are drawn to opposites in more ways than one and that includes the pheromones people exude. So why would two people appear attracted to each other and then fall apart? Well, we like to use liberal amounts of perfume and cologne in some parts of the world which in some ways cover up or override our natural pheromones.

So two people who've dated a lot always wearing their best face (and odors) seem compatible, but in reality they might have clashing pheromones that are getting covered up. So when they finally move in together and spend time in each other's company without any of the various cover ups, suddenly the attraction is dulled or even reversed.

My philosophy teacher in high school commented that to really get to know someone, you shouldn't be focusing on how they are on a Friday night date, but how they would be on a Saturday morning. That sounds PG-13ish, but that's not how he meant it. His point was that when you go out on a date (or really when you do anything in public) most people put up a facade. And if people fall in love with each other's facades, they may be in for a rude awakening when they meet the real person.

The real person is revealed by the Saturday morning person. How would you be at 9:00am on a Saturday morning if you had made absolutely no plans for the day? How many people would be up, bright-eyed and dressed to the nines at that time? What he was saying is that it's far more important to know what the person really is like underneath (how they would behave on a lazy Saturday morning) than how they present themselves on a Friday night date. So that's a couple of reasons for break-ups and the like.

Mmm... I've heard about the pheromones myself and I've heard that's a reason why you can find people more attractive when you're drunk, because the sensibility of the smell is somewhat less.

Anyways... We can give another point of view to what your philosophy teacher said, but that would be to accept that we base our (at least) initial attraction towards someone else on the physical attributes of the other person, and not only on the chemical reactions. So we might feel attracted so certain individual who is very dressed up and covered in perfume on a friday night in a club, but when we see what's underneath that, we're brought back to reality and realize that it was only the appearence what caught our eye, so there was actually no chemical reaction.

So, could there be a chemical reaction between two people who have never met in person? Can we explain the chemical reaction between two individuals that meet over the internet? I don't know, can we? Because I think you can look at someone on TV or a magazine and suddenly feel attracted to her/him (not saying that it's love, but love starts somewhere you know ), is that really chemistry? Because I thought that in order for there to be chemistry there should be at least visual contact between "both" individuals, but I'm not sure.

[Guest]

I agree that the putting on, and subsequent dropping of, a facade is certainly a factor in early relationship breakup, but if we're looking months or years down the line, there are other factors involved. Of course there may be long-term deceptions or misunderstandings which surface and destroy the relationship, but in many cases breakups are the result of the natural life-cycle of a relationship. Relationships can be very intense in the early stages (see limerence), where a person is "madly" in love. This is highly "chemical" and is in some sense a chemical imbalance which must, by necessity, be restored sooner or later, since it entails an obsessiveness and sexual energy that intrudes into everyday life. I think it is inevitable that the intensity of a relationship calms down, usually about 1 to 3 years into that relationship. Whether the relationship survives the calming down period depends on the nature of the relationship, whether it centred around that early energy or whether there was more to it. It also depends on the expectations of the people in that relationship, whether they can accept the change. Later on a relationship may feel stale and nostalgia for that early excitement may cause partners to stray, trying to feel that same energy again. People who never settle down are perhaps on a never-ending quest for more limerence.

[Guest]

I agree with most of what you said octopuppy, the early excitement of the relationship usually shifts into a different kind of "love" with time. I think this is where you can start talking about love, which would involve a lot more then just chemistry. Like you said, the partners involved in the relationship and how they adapt to the ups and downs is what might define the future of the relationship. So we can say that the initial phase of a relationship is based more or less on chemistry (and limerence )... This "big" chemical attraction starts to balance itself and you end up with a feeling like things have changed, so you have two options: (1) you adapt, and end up spending a long time with that partner or (2) you split up because you need that limerence that you had in the early stage of your relationship. So the question is, which one of those options best defines love? I don't know about you, but I think option (1) is more likely ... So that means that love is not 100% chemical, right? I mean, attraction is 100% chemical, but love isn't, and that's why LOVE<>ATTRACTION. Love goes beyond the excitement and passion of the early stages of each (or most) relationship.

[Guest]

I'm cheating as I have not read all of the posts, but I will answer the question on the title. The murkiness lies in the application of love. Like many other things (socialism anybody?) love would not be as "murky" if it were not for the human element. Of course I will argue that the human element helps explain the beauty of love...but that was not the question now was it.

[Guest]

So the question is, which one of those options best defines love? I don't know about you, but I think option (1) is more likely ... So that means that love is not 100% chemical, right? I mean, attraction is 100% chemical, but love isn't, and that's why LOVE<>ATTRACTION. Love goes beyond the excitement and passion of the early stages of each (or most) relationship.

I wouldn't want to define love as one thing and not another, there's so many uses of the word that it's a hiding to nothing. Our language fails us there. At least in Italian there are more distinct ways of saying "I love you" (kind of like how Eskimos have several words for snow ): "ti amo" (romantic / intense), and "ti voglio bene" (family / friend) avoids some of the more awkward misunderstandings but I think that's only scraping the surface. You could probably think up as many distinct forms of love as you wanted, depending on how specifically you want to categorise. For example the previous two categories could be subdivided and don't really express dependence, limerence, reciprocation, humanity, passion, regard, comfort and a whole host of other factors in any clear way. Language affects the way we think about things, and our lack of language suggests that "love" is one thing, which IMO is just silly.