Love!

[Showmeproof]

This topic does not deal with the paranormal (I coul dbe wrong), but since there are SO many intelligent people on this board, I will ask anyway.

I was interested in the topic "Love as a chemical reaction." Obviously, when we are in love or fall in love, certain chemicals are elicited from our brains so we experience euphoria, etc. Many scientists actually do believe that love is purely a chemical reaction and nothing more. BUT, if love is purely a chemical reaction, how is it that we are able to differentiate between the one person we fall in love with and marry, and the rest of society? Obviously, chemicals in the brain are elicited in more of an abundance when you come across the girl you fell in love with, as opposted to the many other people you meet throughout the day.

Any thoughts?

[Aepervius]

Just for the same reason you like to eat some particular product but no other. Why do I like chocolate but dislike strawberries ? Why do I dislike golden apple but like granny smith ?

OTOH I can certainly tell you why I prefer big breasted women (*cough*. Apparently because as a man it allows me to better evaluate the age of a woman and/or evaluate her possible fertility. Or so I read.).

So why you like a woman among many other ? Because due to your education/life/history she correspond better to the type of women you like. And your brain and the neuronal pathway which were created since your birth simply have this category of woman as target (or man).

Furthermore I would like to say, that most probably it isn't ONE woman which is for you in the population. But a whole buttload which correspond to the criteria your brain like. The criteria are probably more broad than any would care to admit in presence of their current life partner.And I bet with you that if there was not a certain stigmata in our western society agaisnt polygamy/polyandry (?) then a lot more woman/men would openly date/fall in love/have kids/have sex with multiple men/women (if certain statistic are to be believed, many a men and women certainly have multiple sexual partner at the same time , often despite being in a happy mariage).

My summary : it is all chemicals, and all made to make you have sex and reproduce. No Magic sadly.

[Michelle Lyon]

People are often drawn to each other because they've had similar life experiences. We choose people who are most like ourselves, and when we meet such people, those subconscious parts of the brain do their work to form the attatchment. How exactly that happens is over my head, though.:boggled:

[Ron_Tomkins]

Many scientists actually do believe that love is purely a chemical reaction and nothing more. BUT, if love is purely a chemical reaction, how is it that we are able to differentiate between the one person we fall in love with and marry, and the rest of society?


I don't get what you mean by "differentiate between the person we fall in love and the rest of society". We differentiate people all of the time. Otherwise, we would have no way of telling the difference between one person and the other. Yes, that was an incredibly obvious statement I just made, but that's all I got from what you've given me. I don't know in what sense do you mean "differentiate".


But here's a report you should read about the topic which will answer most if not all of your questions:
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/romance.htm

[AliasN]

Scott Thomson's character Buddy Cole says that love is just "an allergic reaction to the right lighting".

As for a serious answer, I'm no scientist. I haven't read anything about this so I have no idea other than impressions I've gotten during my own lifetime of loving people. But I think it's safe to say that the feeling of romantic love is not solely chemical. Chemistry plays a vitally important role to be sure, but there are other social and psychological factors that are at play as well. I would think it would be very difficult to isolate them from one another.

Again, all I have to back that up is my own personal experiences and what I've observed of other people's relationships as well. But I think there is a reason that when you bar a 16 year old girl from ever dating a boy with a motorcycle [or a hippy or a gang-banger or whatever you're terrified of her dating] that is very often the type of boy she falls for.

[Fnord]

"Falling in love" is an emotional response to biochemical stimuli.

"Loving" is an intellectual choice.

Belief is "Love" as a state of being or an embodiment of action and motivation is much like belief in the supernatural, in that once the non-existance of the supernatural realm and its denizens is proven, the belief in "Love" will soon fade away as well.

[Bikewer]

One sex researcher proposed the idea of a "lovemap". (still pretty much standard, as far as I know) This is the notion that each person develops a psychological construct of an ideal "partner" early in life.
This would be based on those persons the developing child comes into contact with; parents, siblings, caregivers, etc. The idea of "attractiveness" to an individual is based strongly on this construct.
It's long been observed that people are continually attracted to physically-similar partners, and that men tend to "marry their mothers" while women tend to "marry their fathers".
Only natural, (if this hypothesis holds water) since those individuals would be prominent in the formative years.
There are other factors as well, of course, and this "lovemap" can be altered in various ways.

[Undesired Walrus]

My summary : it is all chemicals, and all made to make you have sex and reproduce. No Magic sadly.

Why sadly? We should rejoice in the knowledge that our tiny bodies are capable of that incredible overhall of common usage. No eating, no sleeping, just an incredible rollercoaster ride that was hammered into us over our billions of years of evolution. A desperate program that will stop at nothing to ensure the survival of the incredible species that is humanity.

Although it would be nice to believe some magic was there too..;)

[Fnord]

Although it would be nice to believe some magic was there too..;)

Yeah ... it would be "nice to know" that we are something more than mere bio-chemical robots acting on commands that are invoked by a web of stimulus-response strands that are in turn imposed on us by evolution.

[GreyICE]

"Falling in love" is an emotional response to biochemical stimuli.

"Loving" is an intellectual choice.

Belief is "Love" as a state of being or an embodiment of action and motivation is much like belief in the supernatural, in that once the non-existance of the supernatural realm and its denizens is proven, the belief in "Love" will soon fade away as well.


Belief in the supernatural is belief in a power outside of yourself. Love is an emotional state, and the two have nada to do with eachother. I don't believe loving is an intellectual choice just as I don't believe that sexual orientation or desire are intellectual choices.


Love will be here long after the last religion dies out.

[Showmeproof]

I don't get what you mean by "differentiate between the person we fall in love and the rest of society". We differentiate people all of the time. Otherwise, we would have no way of telling the difference between one person and the other. Yes, that was an incredibly obvious statement I just made, but that's all I got from what you've given me. I don't know in what sense do you mean "differentiate".


But here's a report you should read about the topic which will answer most if not all of your questions:
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/romance.htm


Sorry that my wording came out wrong. For example, I meet many females in my life, but NOT all of them elicit a certain response, whether it be a sexual response or some other. I was wondering how the brain differentiated between just seeing a female, and then seeing a female and having all these chemical reactions that lead to euphoria, sexual arousal, etc. Hope this helps.

I am from NYC, queens. Where in NYC are you?

[skeptigirl]

If there really was only one person for you in all the world, the chances of meeting them would be slim to none. Pair bonding, OTOH, is a known phenomena among many species including humans. But I suspect we are one of the few, if not the only species where pair bonding is so heavily affected by culture.

I don't know how many kinds of pair bonding goes on in non-human primates within a species. Could be there are more than one kind of male/female mating pattern or it could be the pattern is the same in all individuals within the species but dependent on the role within the group hierarchy. I think it is fascinating to see a chimp couple sneak off for a quickie behind the dominant male's back. That has to have something to do with individual attraction considering the female is willingly choosing to mate with a male of lesser genes.

But in human pair bonding, look how much culture results in variations on the theme. How does a couple fall in love when they are in an arranged marriage? Perhaps over time a bond develops. It's hard to imagine.

I'm from the culture of serial monogamy. Yet the percentage of men in this culture who cheat must be substantial. Clearly monogamous pair bonding in modern cultures is only loosely adhered to. Not that some people don't have successful marriages without any adultery, but they couldn't be more than 50% of the population if that. Yet in my parents day, I would imagine it was a much larger percentage.

I've always felt loyal to my partners and never went outside the relationship. Yet in both my 2 long term relationships the guys cheated. And no, it wasn't because the sex wasn't good. It's just that some people and dare I say it, more men than women, don't have that same sense of loyalty.

The initial falling in love is definitely a physical thing. It is odd that when the 'thing' happens, you do feel that person is 'the one'. As the intense physical attraction subsides, you either develop a long term bond or you don't. And if you do develop that bond, then it becomes enjoyment of the friendship as well as the sex that keeps a relationship going. At least in my case.

[Fnord]

Belief in the supernatural is belief in a power outside of yourself. Love is an emotional state, and the two have nada to do with eachother. I don't believe loving is an intellectual choice just as I don't believe that sexual orientation or desire are intellectual choices.


Love will be here long after the last religion dies out.


I said, "Belief is "Love" as a state of being or an embodiment of action and motivation..." In other words, "Love" as a supernatural force (much like a paranormal form of gravity or electro-magnetism). In this sense, once belief in the supernatural has been eliminated, belief in "Love" as a supernatural force will also die out.

Once everyone understands that what we know as "Love" is either an intellectual choice (duty / devotion) or a bio-chemical reaction to hormones, pheromones, and endorphins (lust), the belief that "Love" as a supernatural force will die out as well.

Then meaningless phrases like "Soul-Mate", "Meant for each other", "Match made in Heaven", and "Together forever" will be banished to Fairyland, just like the phrase "Happily Ever After" was long ago.

[skeptigirl]

Sorry that my wording came out wrong. For example, I meet many females in my life, but NOT all of them elicit a certain response, whether it be a sexual response or some other. I was wondering how the brain differentiated between just seeing a female, and then seeing a female and having all these chemical reactions that lead to euphoria, sexual arousal, etc. Hope this helps....I have always thought that was interesting too. But it seems we develop a particular type of attraction. I think part of that is a visual attraction. And what seems attractive to one is not always exactly attractive to another. There are criteria you use to decide that you admire certain people and are turned off by others. That could be physical features or other indicators.

I had an interesting experience in my younger days before I had any partners. There was this guy who liked me but I just didn't find him physically attractive. He wasn't unattractive. It's just that he wasn't my type. But we were good friends and went to the Mardi Gras together. A girlfriend of mine came along as well but we dropped her off in Pensacola before the two of us went back to Colorado. Anyway, somewhere along the way I just became sexually attracted and for the life of me I can't figure out what changed. So we had a nice little fling and that was that. Great sex, I still wasn't interested in him as a mate. Weird experience.

[skeptigirl]

...
Then meaningless phrases like "Soul-Mate", "Meant for each other", "Match made in Heaven", and "Together forever" will be banished to Fairyland, just like the phrase "Happily Ever After" was long ago.Perhaps the terminology is not exact, but there is something to be said for having that 'best friend' plus sex relationship with someone. That's the thing I miss and am sorry neither of my long term partners remained as lifelong. We are a gregarious species. We create long term non-blood-relative relationships with people whether it is a best friend or two or a bonded partner. It isn't a fantasy that those relationships develop naturally.

I wish I still had one but I never had the benefit of the luck of the draw. Either that, or I just had lousy criteria that I was attracted to. The adventurous type rather than the stable guy also ends up being the guy who doesn't stay in a long term relationship. I'm going to find me a geekier guy next time. ;)

[skeptigirl]

One sex researcher proposed the idea of a "lovemap". (still pretty much standard, as far as I know) This is the notion that each person develops a psychological construct of an ideal "partner" early in life.
This would be based on those persons the developing child comes into contact with; parents, siblings, caregivers, etc. The idea of "attractiveness" to an individual is based strongly on this construct.
It's long been observed that people are continually attracted to physically-similar partners, and that men tend to "marry their mothers" while women tend to "marry their fathers".
Only natural, (if this hypothesis holds water) since those individuals would be prominent in the formative years.
There are other factors as well, of course, and this "lovemap" can be altered in various ways.This is an apt description of the phenomena.

No way was I ever attracted to anyone like my Dad though. We never saw eye to eye.

[Autolite]

There are criteria you use to decide that you admire certain people.


Criteria? Do you mean like financial status and how closely they might resemble Annette Funicello? That's all that ever really mattered to me...

[GreyICE]

I said, "Belief is "Love" as a state of being or an embodiment of action and motivation..." In other words, "Love" as a supernatural force (much like a paranormal form of gravity or electro-magnetism). In this sense, once belief in the supernatural has been eliminated, belief in "Love" as a supernatural force will also die out.

Once everyone understands that what we know as "Love" is either an intellectual choice (duty / devotion) or a bio-chemical reaction to hormones, pheromones, and endorphins (lust), the belief that "Love" as a supernatural force will die out as well.

Then meaningless phrases like "Soul-Mate", "Meant for each other", "Match made in Heaven", and "Together forever" will be banished to Fairyland, just like the phrase "Happily Ever After" was long ago. Putting all human reactions down to intellectual response or biochemical reaction seems a little extreme. There's clear reactions that occupy neither category. So I think your characterization of love is inadequate.

[Pup]

Yeah ... it would be "nice to know" that we are something more than mere bio-chemical robots acting on commands that are invoked by a web of stimulus-response strands that are in turn imposed on us by evolution.

I never understood why it would "nice to know."

Seems to me, to address the original question, that love is like any other combination of intellectual and emotional reactions, that can be partially controlled and partially happen spontaneously, whether it's love, fear, a sense of safety, a sense of achievement, or whatever.

We can control them to some extent, like learning relaxation techniques, overcoming phobias through repeated exposure, getting used to a new home until it feels as familiar as an old one, setting a goal and then feeling a sense of achievement when we succeed, etc. But in the end, emotions all happen in the chemical reactions of our brain. Where else would they happen?

And personally, I don't think it would be particularly nice to know otherwise.

Thanks to years of stress in childhood, my brain chemistry is messed up. I'm stuck on "fear" and "dread," so most every day, I feel like something bad is going to happen, or I'm afraid of things that might have happened 30 years ago but have no chance of happening now.

In my twenties, I suffered from agoraphobia, but now I've learned just to ignore those feelings and go about my life as normally as possible.

Would it be nice to know, "What you feel isn't just a messed-up bio-chemical reaction, there really is something that's threatening you"? Uh, I don't think so.

One can learn to enjoy positive emotions to their fullest, just as one can learn to control and minimize negative ones, but I don't see the point of also needing to convince oneself they're something more than brain chemistry, as if the human brain was somehow not wonderful and miraculous enough unless it also was affected by supernatural things.

[skeptigirl]

Criteria? Do you mean like financial status and how closely they might resemble Annette Funicello? That's all that ever really mattered to me...Boys think with that little head. ;) Er..you are a boy, right? Don't mean to insult your taste in women if you aren't.

[Showmeproof]

Perhaps the terminology is not exact, but there is something to be said for having that 'best friend' plus sex relationship with someone. That's the thing I miss and am sorry neither of my long term partners remained as lifelong. We are a gregarious species. We create long term non-blood-relative relationships with people whether it is a best friend or two or a bonded partner. It isn't a fantasy that those relationships develop naturally.

I wish I still had one but I never had the benefit of the luck of the draw. Either that, or I just had lousy criteria that I was attracted to. The adventurous type rather than the stable guy also ends up being the guy who doesn't stay in a long term relationship. I'm going to find me a geekier guy next time. ;)


Well, if you claim the sex wasnt bad in the two other relationships on your end (I assume you are doing something right lol) I will marry you :D

And do not despair, my luck with choosing the right female has not been very good. And so the search continues................lol

[Smackety]

I think defining "Love" is the real challenge here. Passionate love is a simple biochemical response that can be recreated in the lab with a bit of secretly introduced adrenalin and a confederate. Compassionate love, like you have for your grandparents, may as well be instinctual, it is so deeply rooted as to be indistinguishable from normalcy.

[PAC]

Criteria? Do you mean like financial status and how closely they might resemble Annette Funicello? That's all that ever really mattered to me...

I totally get the Annette Funicello thing. I have fond memories as a young boy wathcing her on television and concentrating on those two large, round, soft...ears! Mice are hot!

[Fnord]

Putting all human reactions down to intellectual response or biochemical reaction seems a little extreme. There's clear reactions that occupy neither category. So I think your characterization of love is inadequate.

Elaborate, please?

What other than response or reaction could explain love, without invoking the supernatural?

[GreyICE]

Elaborate, please?

What other than response or reaction could explain love, without invoking the supernatural?

You just drove right by the instinctual level. No supernatural required. The level where you fear spiders, or the scream of a bobcat sends a shiver through your spine, or the level where you react to the buzzing of bees. Trust me, from experience, it is far more active on that level than on the intellectual one. There isn't "Intellectual and Biochemical, no reactions need apply." Or, in other words, when someone drops a large object loudly right next to you, when do you make the intellectual decision to flinch?

[Pup]

There isn't "Intellectual and Biochemical, no reactions need apply." Or, in other words, when someone drops a large object loudly right next to you, when do you make the intellectual decision to flinch?

But isn't that pretty much the standard example of a biochemical reaction, when that whole fight or flight mechanism kicks in?

[GreyICE]

But isn't that pretty much the standard example of a biochemical reaction, when that whole fight or flight mechanism kicks in?

Not in the least. The fight or flight reaction is known as adrenaline. It triggers the fight or flight emotions.

Where do you suppose the 'flinch' gland is located? Flinching is an instinctual response to stimuli - there is no chemical aspect whatsoever. Similarly there is no 'spider' gland that causes you to be afraid when you see a spider - yet arachnaphobes are, without making an intellectual decision to be scared.

[Mark A. Siefert]

Oy vey, don't get me started! I'm already bummed about Sir. Arthur C. Clarke passing, I don't need a romance-based discussion to drive me to suicide.

[Kahalachan]

I think with something like love, defining it with such a strict set of parameters doesn't do it much justice.

Even within scientific parameters we could go further than just saying a bunch of chemicals. We can define it with anthropology as being a purely communal relationship. Psychologically it can be described as a form of attachment.

Just like red would be the 700 nm wavelength range, we don't describe it that way. We have qualia that gives that wavelength subjectivity and allows us to embue it with metaphor.

Same with love.

[Pup]

Where do you suppose the 'flinch' gland is located? Flinching is an instinctual response to stimuli - there is no chemical aspect whatsoever. Similarly there is no 'spider' gland that causes you to be afraid when you see a spider - yet arachnaphobes are, without making an intellectual decision to be scared.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that the mechanism which causes the startle response, racing heart, hyperventiliation, a sense of fear, and other symptoms induced by phobias isn't a biochemical process? If not, what causes it without chemical changes?

[GreyICE]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that the mechanism which causes the startle response, racing heart, hyperventiliation, a sense of fear, and other symptoms induced by phobias isn't a biochemical process? If not, what causes it without chemical changes?

No. The mechanism that causes (or triggers) the chemical responses is not chemical. Its instinctual. You can learn to overcome and remove the instinct. Try doing that with a chemical process. Adrenaline will always make your heart race, cause hyperventilation, trigger nervousness, deaden pain, heighten reflexes, etc. Doesn't matter if your glands produce it or if its injected through a needle. You can't train yourself to not need Insulin or react differently to Adrenaline or not get drunk off alcohol (biochemical responses). You can train your body not to react to spiders, or not to flinch when you hear a loud noise or to have no reaction to the sound of bees (instinctual responses). In neither case is your response to the stimuli the result of rational thought chains (intellectual responses).

[Fnord]

You just drove right by the instinctual level. No supernatural required. The level where you fear spiders, or the scream of a bobcat sends a shiver through your spine, or the level where you react to the buzzing of bees. Trust me, from experience, it is far more active on that level than on the intellectual one. There isn't "Intellectual and Biochemical, no reactions need apply." Or, in other words, when someone drops a large object loudly right next to you, when do you make the intellectual decision to flinch?

Ah-HAH! An intelligent answer! So the source of love comes down to:

Instinct - An autonomic reflex.
Emotion - A chemical response.
Intellect - A personal choice.

That should cover everything, and without invoking supernatural forces.

Or, as my ex-mother-in-law once said to my ex-wife when they thought I was out of the house, "Love-schmove; as long as he can pay the bills."