What is "Love" and why is there so much woo-woo around it ?

[El Greco]

As we grow older and leave adolescence far behind [sad], we also inevitably adopt a more skeptic view towards love. We will usually not fall in love anymore with a girl at first sight, or at least will not fantasize too hard about her ;) Women will look for a little more in a man than beautiful blue eyes (could it be a beautiful black wallet ?)

But I have noticed that many people never completely escape love woo-woo-ism, even if they are fully rational in every other aspect of their lives. Why do we love the ones we love ? Why are we attracted to certain people ? What exactly is "love" ? Why do so many people fail to understand the underlying mechanisms of love and treat it almost like magic ?

While I can't provide positive answers to the above questions, I think that the following factors affect our "loving" brain cells:


The Looks. Duh. Beautiful men and women will find love more easily. It's really easier to be loved if you look like Brad Pitt than if you look like a Hobbit. Duh. Sometimes, especially for women, good looks is all they need to attract almost any man they fancy. We all want beautiful people around us. We also like beautiful cars, furniture, clothes etc. It's a matter of aesthetics.
Money, power and stuff like that. Men and women alike, are impressed by the prospect of a luxurious life. It is also very hard to isolate the person we love from his/her belongings, since the stuff we own immensely affects our own character; our self-confidence, our attitude, our anxiety levels etc.
Similarity. People tend to like others if they are alike them. Similar interests, common ways of expressing, similar language and body language, socio- cultural- economic level... when we find a match for all these, we tend to look at the other person as our own extension, as an acknowledgement of our own qualities.
Insecurities. IMO, the number 1 reason people stay together and sometimes "fake" love. It can be emotional insecurity (I need to love and be loved), social insecurity (all my friends are married), financial insecurity (s/he makes more money than I do), gene insecurity (I want to have children and raise them in a family), sexual insecurity (duh), fear of the unknown (what will happen if I have a divorce ? will I find a better one ?)


So, do you think there really is any "chemistry" or anything "magical" in love ? Don't tell me about exceptions that just corroborate the rules. Do you think it is possible for a beautiful, healthy, adorable, rich, clever male to love a disfigured, sick, poor and apish vixen ?

And, if you agree with the above, do you also share my observation that many people tend to find "magic" in love and consider "unexplained" many things that are actually perfectly explainable ? Are you able to discern the mechanisms that make you fall in love or are you a good skeptic only as far as the others are concerned ?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by El Greco

So, do you think there really is any "chemistry" or anything "magical" in love ? Don't tell me about exceptions that just corroborate the rules. Do you think it is possible for a beautiful, healthy, adorable, rich, clever male to love a disfigured, sick, poor and apish vixen ?

Chemistry? You bet. Her's a thread on Love and Dopamine. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=30472)

You know what they say; "Love is a many-splintered thong. Or at least some times it feels that painful."

[Jon_in_london]

I think love is the one thing that should remain firmly in the realm of the woo-woo.

I dont want science taking away the magic of romance.

[Checkmite]

Love is something that cannot be scientifically quantified or qualified. It's purely subjective, like happiness. Since no scientific explanations work, I suppose the only ones left are "woo-woo".

[arcticpenguin]

"Science cannot possibly explain X".
" I do not want science to explain X".

Sorry guys, but you're coming across as woowoos. Just because science can explain X does not mean that X is no longer wonderful and amazing.

Fill in the X.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
"Science cannot possibly explain X".
" I do not want science to explain X".

Sorry guys, but you're coming across as woowoos. Just because science can explain X does not mean that X is no longer wonderful and amazing.

Fill in the X.

I don't think it has anything to do with wanting science to explain love; it just can't - or hasn't been able to yet, anyway. Oh sure, science can record the physiological effects of this or that emotion, but emotions themselves seem to be complete mysteries.

In point of fact, if science came out and said "People fall in love for this reason", I don't think it would detract from the all-around coolness of love.

[Cleopatra]

When I saw the thread title for a moment I believed that Kenneth returned :)

Even if love is mere chemistry I do not care. It's still a great thing.

Do you think it is possible for a beautiful, healthy, adorable, rich, clever male to love a disfigured, sick, poor and apish vixen ?

Yes. Because the vixen as described above might have something that this beautiful, healthy bla bla bla male desperately wants but he can't find anywhere else but in her.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by El Greco
As we grow older and leave adolescence far behind [sad], we also inevitably adopt a more skeptic view towards love. We will usually not fall in love anymore with a girl at first sight, or at least will not fantasize too hard about her ;) Women will look for a little more in a man than beautiful blue eyes (could it be a beautiful black wallet ?)

But I have noticed that many people never completely escape love woo-woo-ism, even if they are fully rational in every other aspect of their lives. Why do we love the ones we love ? Why are we attracted to certain people ? What exactly is "love" ? Why do so many people fail to understand the underlying mechanisms of love and treat it almost like magic ?

While I can't provide positive answers to the above questions, I think that the following factors affect our "loving" brain cells:


The Looks. Duh. Beautiful men and women will find love more easily. It's really easier to be loved if you look like Brad Pitt than if you look like a Hobbit. Duh. Sometimes, especially for women, good looks is all they need to attract almost any man they fancy. We all want beautiful people around us. We also like beautiful cars, furniture, clothes etc. It's a matter of aesthetics.
Money, power and stuff like that. Men and women alike, are impressed by the prospect of a luxurious life. It is also very hard to isolate the person we love from his/her belongings, since the stuff we own immensely affects our own character; our self-confidence, our attitude, our anxiety levels etc.
Similarity. People tend to like others if they are alike them. Similar interests, common ways of expressing, similar language and body language, socio- cultural- economic level... when we find a match for all these, we tend to look at the other person as our own extension, as an acknowledgement of our own qualities.
Insecurities. IMO, the number 1 reason people stay together and sometimes "fake" love. It can be emotional insecurity (I need to love and be loved), social insecurity (all my friends are married), financial insecurity (s/he makes more money than I do), gene insecurity (I want to have children and raise them in a family), sexual insecurity (duh), fear of the unknown (what will happen if I have a divorce ? will I find a better one ?)


So, do you think there really is any "chemistry" or anything "magical" in love ? Don't tell me about exceptions that just corroborate the rules. Do you think it is possible for a beautiful, healthy, adorable, rich, clever male to love a disfigured, sick, poor and apish vixen ?

And, if you agree with the above, do you also share my observation that many people tend to find "magic" in love and consider "unexplained" many things that are actually perfectly explainable ? Are you able to discern the mechanisms that make you fall in love or are you a good skeptic only as far as the others are concerned ?

First of all there is only one type of love. I do not distinguish "romantic love" from other types of love.

Secondly, love has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with chemistry, or indeed any physical process. Such physical processes merely inhibit or allow the feeling of love.

Thirdly, love is not an illusion.

True love is a complete and total identification with another person. A complete empathy with their very being. An infinite appreciation of their intrinsic essence. A melding of 2 minds into one.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


First of all there is only one type of love. I do not distinguish "romantic love" from other types of love.


You don't recognize "filial love" as being any different?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


You don't recognize "filial love" as being any different?

Not if you understand what the word love means.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


First of all there is only one type of love. I do not distinguish "romantic love" from other types of love.

I wouldn't agree with that. I love my children, I love my grandmother, I love my best friend. None of these are the same thing. I wouldn't consider having sex with any of them, for example. I don't feel for them the same way I feel for my wife or even each other. They really do feel to me like very different emotions taht all get lumped together under the name "love"

Secondly, love has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with chemistry, or indeed any physical process. Such physical processes merely inhibit or allow the feeling of love.

I guess that would depend on whether you are a materialist or not;) However I am a materialist and knowing that my love for my wife is the product of chemical reactions in my brain doesn't diminish my feelings for her one bit, nor does it lessen my enjoyment of them.

Thirdly, love is not an illusion.

True love is a complete and total identification with another person. A complete empathy with their very being. An infinite appreciation of their intrinsic essence. A melding of 2 minds into one.

That is a fine concept for a poet. But if you want to look at love in a scientific light it doesn't work, primarally because it means nothing in a scientific sense.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Love is something that cannot be scientifically quantified or qualified. It's purely subjective, like happiness. Since no scientific explanations work, I suppose the only ones left are "woo-woo". Love, just as everything else we experience, is pure brain chemistry.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
First of all there is only one type of love. I do not distinguish "romantic love" from other types of love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wouldn't agree with that. I love my children, I love my grandmother, I love my best friend. None of these are the same thing. I wouldn't consider having sex with any of them, for example.



Sexual attraction does not constitute part of the essence of love. One can be sexually attracted to someone without loving them, and obviously love someone and not be sexually attracted towards them. But of course they can occur together as in romantic love where they supplement and complement each other.




I don't feel for them the same way I feel for my wife



Well, I expect you have some sexual attraction for your wife.


or even each other. They really do feel to me like very different emotions taht all get lumped together under the name "love"


I agree that even if the word love is not poorly defined, a lot of people simply just use the word to describe any sort of sexual attraction. I don't, and I think that love is incredibly rare. People like each other, appreciate each other, care about each other, but love involves more than that (and no I'm not talking about sexual attraction! LOL).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, love has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with chemistry, or indeed any physical process. Such physical processes merely inhibit or allow the feeling of love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I guess that would depend on whether you are a materialist or not However I am a materialist and knowing that my love for my wife is the product of chemical reactions in my brain doesn't diminish my feelings for her one bit, nor does it lessen my enjoyment of them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirdly, love is not an illusion.

True love is a complete and total identification with another person. A complete empathy with their very being. An infinite appreciation of their intrinsic essence. A melding of 2 minds into one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is a fine concept for a poet.



Are you saying my definition is incorrect?


But if you want to look at love in a scientific light it doesn't work, primarally because it means nothing in a scientific sense.


Whether we want to or not, we can't look at love in a scientific sense anymore than any other aspect of consciousness. And I care less than nothing at all that it means nothing in a scientific sense.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Are you saying my definition is incorrect?



I am not saying it is incorrect as much I am saying it is imprecise. I think love is a very hard thing to define because it invariably means different things to different people. It also means different things in different contexts. so defining it is rather like trying to catch a buzzing fly with a pair of chopsticks, it's not impossible, but it's incredibly difficult and the target keeps moving.

Your definition is fine, I think, for MOST situations and people. However I took the discussion to boil down to: Is love "woo-woo" (original posters words, not mine, I don't like the term) concept or not. In my opinion, I think it requires a more....concrete definition than you gave.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Talk to newlyweds and they will tell you how in love they are. Talk to a couple who have been married for 30+ years and they'll tell you how they've merely put up with each other.

Love is a silly, temporary, fickle thing. Its basis in biology is undeniable.

Romance is a lie. Because romance is about what life isn't like. Romance is pretending, for a time, that your partner is perfect, and that all is well with the world.

In reality, it is no different from a male seahorse vibrating in front of the female, or the bright plumage and strange noises and dances of various birds. That is romance. Nothing more than an attempt at getting an interest to mate with you.

To quote Callisto, "Love is nature's trick to get you to reproduce."

Strangely enough, I'm a romantic. I just acknowledge it as a lie. As smoke and mirrors. But oh, what a pleasurable lie it is...

[DanishDynamite]

Interesting Ian:Sexual attraction does not constitute part of the essence of love.Of course it does. The probleming, dear Ian, is that the term "love" is overloaded. In one definition, that between two mates, sexual desire is obviously a large component.
One can be sexually attracted to someone without loving them, and obviously love someone and not be sexually attracted towards them. But of course they can occur together as in romantic love where they supplement and complement each other.See above.
I agree that even if the word love is not poorly defined, a lot of people simply just use the word to describe any sort of sexual attraction. I don't, and I think that love is incredibly rare. People like each other, appreciate each other, care about each other, but love involves more than that (and no I'm not talking about sexual attraction! LOL).The term "love" has two major branches. One branch very much includes sexual attraction, the other doesn't.
Are you saying my definition is incorrect?Not so much incorrect, just limited. In the English language, "love" means many things.
Whether we want to or not, we can't look at love in a scientific sense anymore than any other aspect of consciousness. And I care less than nothing at all that it means nothing in a scientific sense. Of course we can look at love in the scientific sense. Love is pure science.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
However I took the discussion to boil down to: Is love "woo-woo" (original posters words, not mine, I don't like the term)

Original poster's words were completely different: I spoke about woo-woo around love, surrounding love, I didn't say that love itself is woo-woo.

...and original poster's observations seem to get confirmed:

It looks like the "whys" and "hows" of our love are a taboo even for this forum!

Is it only me who (at last) can (more or less) identify my motives, reasons, insecurities etc behind my love for a woman ?

These things I read here remind me of a religious forum! "Love" is magic, "love" is inexplicable, "love" is mysterious! Beware skeptics - stay away from "love"! And some of you may be insinuating that dissecting "love" means that "I feel less" ??? The same way that theists look down on atheists as less moral ?

Also, the original question didn't have the meaning of whether love is a hormonal or chemical function. Of course it is, although perhaps we will never be able to understand it fully at the molecular level. I just meant that an outer observer can use pure common sense in order to justify why we love the people we love. But many people dispute this, and seem to believe that there is indeed something "magical" about it.

Ok, how many of you can you prove me wrong ? How many have completely ignored the factors I presented above and loved a person of the opposite sex just for his/her character and "aura" ignoring any possible objective criteria that would deem this match doomed ?

Some of you say that love is inexplicable, but I bet I wouldn't be surprised at all by your selection of mate...

(But such posts could be justified if your other halves are over your shoulder while you are reading this :D)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by El Greco


Original poster's words were completely different: I spoke about woo-woo around love, surrounding love, I didn't say that love itself is woo-woo.

...and original poster's observations seem to get confirmed:

It looks like the "whys" and "hows" of our love are a taboo even for this forum!

Is it only me who (at last) can (more or less) identify my motives, reasons, insecurities etc behind my love for a woman ?

These things I read here remind me of a religious forum! "Love" is magic, "love" is inexplicable, "love" is mysterious! Beware skeptics - stay away from "love"! And some of you may be insinuating that dissecting "love" means that "I feel less" ??? The same way that theists look down on atheists as less moral ?

Also, the original question didn't have the meaning of whether love is a hormonal or chemical function. Of course it is, although perhaps we will never be able to understand it fully at the molecular level. I just meant that an outer observer can use pure common sense in order to justify why we love the people we love. But many people dispute this, and seem to believe that there is indeed something "magical" about it.

Ok, how many of you can you prove me wrong ? How many have completely ignored the factors I presented above and loved a person of the opposite sex just for his/her character and "aura" ignoring any possible objective criteria that would deem this match doomed ?

Some of you say that love is inexplicable, but I bet I wouldn't be surprised at all by your selection of mate...

(But such posts could be justified if your other halves are over your shoulder while you are reading this :D)

Sorry, misunderstood you. That is what I get for trying to read the forum and monitor something else at work at the same time.

As for love being inexplicable, I don't know if you werer referring to my comment, but that's not exactly what I said either. I said that it means different things to different people. Even if you eliminate all of the other forms of love (love of family, love of friends, love of country, etc.) and concentrate only on love between "significant others", that still covers a lot of ground. Some will define it along the lines of pure sexual attraction, some on intellectual compatability. Most will pick something somewhere between those two. I don't think it means the same thing to any two people.

I think your list is broad enough that it
does cover most of the reasons people get together, my point is that every single person will attach a different weight to each of those factors. They might not realize it but then again it is very difficult, maybe even impossible, to be objective about any situation (good or bad) that one is personally involved in. That include ones romantic life.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
[B]


I am not saying it is incorrect as much I am saying it is imprecise.



I think my definition is vastly more accurate then yours and other peoples.



I think love is a very hard thing to define because it invariably means different things to different people.


This was the point of my other post. I said it ought not to.




It also means different things in different contexts.



As I say it is unfortunate that people use it so loosely. That doesn't mean to say the concept itself has an indefinite meaning! :eek:



so defining it is rather like trying to catch a buzzing fly with a pair of chopsticks, it's not impossible, but it's incredibly difficult and the target keeps moving.



I see nothing particularly wrong with my definition.


Your definition is fine, I think, for MOST situations and people. However I took the discussion to boil down to: Is love "woo-woo" (original posters words, not mine, I don't like the term) concept or not. In my opinion, I think it requires a more....concrete definition than you gave.

Well why don't you give one then?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
[B]Talk to newlyweds and they will tell you how in love they are. Talk to a couple who have been married for 30+ years and they'll tell you how they've merely put up with each other.



It doesn't really matter what they say, they are mistaken.



Love is a silly, temporary, fickle thing. Its basis in biology is undeniable.



It has absolutely nothing to do with the physical world. How could it?



Romance is a lie. Because romance is about what life isn't like. Romance is pretending, for a time, that your partner is perfect, and that all is well with the world.

In reality, it is no different from a male seahorse vibrating in front of the female, or the bright plumage and strange noises and dances of various birds. That is romance. Nothing more than an attempt at getting an interest to mate with you.

To quote Callisto, "Love is nature's trick to get you to reproduce."



And you and him confuse love with romance.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
[B]The term "love" has two major branches. One branch very much includes sexual attraction, the other doesn't.


{shrugs} Agape and eros. The word love in its proper sense is used in the agape sense.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying my definition is incorrect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not so much incorrect, just limited. In the English language, "love" means many things.


People use it to mean many things. I'm talking about the real definition.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether we want to or not, we can't look at love in a scientific sense anymore than any other aspect of consciousness. And I care less than nothing at all that it means nothing in a scientific sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course we can look at love in the scientific sense. Love is pure science.


Simply contradicting me doesn't impress me.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


As I say it is unfortunate that people use it so loosely. That doesn't mean to say the concept itself has an indefinite meaning! :eek:

I am not so sure about that. I think that it is a personal thing, Like calling something "Good" or "Bad". What is "good" to me might be totally indifferent or even "bad" to you. Likewise what may be "love" to one person might be viewed as lust to another and mere infatuation to a third. That's what I mean when I say the definition changes.

I see nothing particularly wrong with my definition.

Well why don't you give one then?

If you ask me to define "love" in general, I will freely admit that I am not up to the task. I am neither a philosopher nor a scientist, such work is in their realm (take your pick on which is more qualified) not that of a humble coder of accounting software. Entire books can be written on the subject ,and have been. Your definition works, in that sense, as well as any. For purposes of this discussion, though, I think a simpler but more concrete definition will suffice (though I will admit that I am not good at putting abstract concepts into words) "Whatever combination of thoughts, feelings and emotions one personally has toward one's wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever or potential wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever". That's the way I am taking it anyway. I'll admit though, that your definition sounds a lot more poetic. I may even steal it for use with my wife someday when I have gotten myself into big trouble. ;)

[Mercutio]

With my luck with skepchicks, I could teach a class on love...






...wait a minute, I already have (honest!). Of course one can examine love scientifically. There is a huge literature in social psychology on love. Rather than run to my bookshelf and start quoting, I'm going to watch this thread for a bit and see what you folk come up with...

just a couple of things, though.

1) If love is as important as we claim it is, doesn't it deserve scientific investigation?

2) Once you know the research behind love, and see what we can and cannot say with relative certainty about love, sex, intimacy, attachment, etc....I guarantee, it still makes you weak in the knees. Nothing (qualifier: for me, so far) that we know about love makes it one iota less powerful.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Mercutio
With my luck with skepchicks, I could teach a class on love...

...wait a minute, I already have (honest!).
Like they say, "those who can't -"
Sorry, I can't do it. This one is too obvious, even for me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Of course one can examine love scientifically.



We most certainly cannot.



There is a huge literature in social psychology on love.



So what? If we cannot scientifically explain why consciousness exists, then a fortiori we will not be able to say anything about particular conscious states. The most you could conceivably study are the effects of love. Even then how could you ever know anyone is experiencing love? Recall my definition.




1) If love is as important as we claim it is, doesn't it deserve scientific investigation?



There's nothing science can say about it.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Like they say, "those who can't -"
Sorry, I can't do it. This one is too obvious, even for me.

*sigh*

et tu, waterfowl?:D

edited to add smiley...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


We most certainly cannot.
Hmmm...we already do, which kinda puts a kink in yer hose, there...you may certainly quibble with operational definitions and such, but when you do so, you are engaging in part of the process of science. Certainly, there have been those who agree with you. A U.S. Senator, sen. Proxmire, gave a "golden fleece" award to some love researchers as a waste of government money.

So what? If we cannot scientifically explain why consciousness exists, then a fortiori we will not be able to say anything about particular conscious states. The most you could conceivably study are the effects of love. Even then how could you ever know anyone is experiencing love? Recall my definition.
Yeah, um, we've kinda been around the block a couple of times about consciousness, haven't we? Society defines love in much the same way as we define consciousness--that is, poorly. One of the biggest challenges of a scientific approach to love is operationalization. This is, of course, a legitimate complaint; you may operationalize love very differently from me. However, this is par for the course in scientific investigation, and we can expect to converge on better and better definitions (although, by definition, no operational definition will ever be perfect) of love.

There is no a priori reason to think that this particular subject should prove immune to scientific inquiry. If love is special, then we will be unable to find empirical trends. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting--the proof of a scientific investigation of love is in the results. We have found useful information. (BTW, none of the useful information involves the planets Venus and Mars--if anyone thinks that psychology's study of love is best reflected in Gray's work, please please please think again.)

There's nothing science can say about it. Close. There is nothing science can say about it that interesting ian will listen to would probably be closer to the truth. There is quite a lot that science can say about it that you will ignore. Such is life.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Hmmm...we already do, which kinda puts a kink in yer hose, there...you may certainly quibble with operational definitions and such, but when you do so, you are engaging in part of the process of science. Certainly, there have been those who agree with you. A U.S. Senator, sen. Proxmire, gave a "golden fleece" award to some love researchers as a waste of government money.
Yeah, um, we've kinda been around the block a couple of times about consciousness, haven't we? Society defines love in much the same way as we define consciousness--that is, poorly. One of the biggest challenges of a scientific approach to love is operationalization. This is, of course, a legitimate complaint; you may operationalize love very differently from me. However, this is par for the course in scientific investigation, and we can expect to converge on better and better definitions (although, by definition, no operational definition will ever be perfect) of love.

There is no a priori reason to think that this particular subject should prove immune to scientific inquiry. If love is special, then we will be unable to find empirical trends. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting--the proof of a scientific investigation of love is in the results. We have found useful information. (BTW, none of the useful information involves the planets Venus and Mars--if anyone thinks that psychology's study of love is best reflected in Gray's work, please please please think again.)
Close. There is nothing science can say about it that interesting ian will listen to would probably be closer to the truth. There is quite a lot that science can say about it that you will ignore. Such is life.

I'm not prepared to argue about it. You simply don't understand what science is about. Science deals with the physical world. It has nothing to say about love. Mystical experiences like NDE's tell us what love is.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I'm not prepared to argue about it. You simply don't understand what science is about. Science deals with the physical world. It has nothing to say about love. Mystical experiences like NDE's tell us what love is. I respect your right to disagree, Ian, but our scientific view of love is based on the wild idea that the folks who fall in love are members of the physical world. That their actions, even their feelings, are part of the physical world. I already know you disagree with this, but at least we are consistent. Yup, science deals with the physical world. Even if we have to stretch our definitions so much as to include people in that world.


Oddly enough, I have been in love, but have never had an NDE...so I'm not quite certain what to make of your last sentence.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Love, just as everything else we experience, is pure brain chemistry.

Well obviously it's brain chemistry.

My point was that the exact processes haven't been quantified yet.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Well obviously it's brain chemistry.


Ok I have a question not only towards you Joshua.

What happens when we stop loving somebody. Where does this chemistry go?

Also, in another thread in the P&R forum we discuss about how Religion affects Relationships. Some of us have experienced outrageous behaviors that questioned our intelligence, patience and choices and yet "the chemistry" didn't evaporate....

How Science explains that?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Well obviously it's brain chemistry.

My point was that the exact processes haven't been quantified yet. Even if it is reducible ultimately to brain chemistry (or ultimately to natural selection, take your pick of structural or functional ultimate causes), I don't think that is a useful level of analysis. The problem is not at the level of neurochemistry, but at a definition of love. The neurobiologist might be able to identify the chemicals involved in the feeling of "being in love" (one author has termed this feeling "limerance", a term I love--to no one's surprise), but as has been stated on this thread, not all loving relationships involve that feeling. So we have other feelings, other behaviors, each of which is of course reducible to brain chemistry...but of course, we won't be able to point to one neurotransmitter or one pathway and say "there--that is love".

The trick of defining love is to recognize that it is a category label for a number of different behaviors (I use the word "behavior" as a radical behaviorist, including thinking, feeling, remembering, as well as sonnet-writing, singing underneath balconies, staring deeply into obsidian eyes, etc.). When we learn the word "love", we learn it in all these contexts, and we necessarily learn to label our feelings imperfectly (because those who teach us the labels for what we feel do not have access to our feelings themselves). We say that we do these things, feel this way, because of love, when in fact the causation goes the other way; we call it love because we do these things and feel this way. Of course, I expect Interesting Ian to disagree.

That said, there have been a number of attempts at defining love in such a manner as to include all of what the category means. One current model is Sternberg's triangular theory, which uses a triangular model (duh), the corners of which are labeled "intimacy", "passion" and "commitment". Intimacy is not sexual intimacy, but the ability to share with another, to talk about things, to be interested in one another's lives. Passion is the possessive, sexual (literally or metaphorically), physical desire. Commitment is the intent to remain together.

One can have different amounts of each of the three "ingredients", which will put your own "love" at a particular part of the triangle. Intimacy and Passion, but no commitment, is labeled "romantic love" (think paperback novels); Passion and Commitment, but no intimacy, is "fatuous love". Commitment and Intimacy, but no passion, is "friendship"; all three ingredients together are "consummate love". Of course, these are labels for particular combinations, but in theory an infinite variety of combinations is possible.

Of course, this is not the only attempt at a definition. I present it here only to say that yes, we do try to study love scientfically. Perhaps I'll try to find and post some of the scales that measure love according to Sternberg's model.


I really didn't mean to write this much...

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Commitment and Intimacy, but no passion, is "friendship";

Just one little change - commitment and intimacy together is "companionate love", there's also passion alone which is "infatuation", commitment alone which is "empty love", and intimacy alone which is "liking"

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Ok I have a question not only towards you Joshua.

What happens when we stop loving somebody. Where does this chemistry go?

Also, in another thread in the P&R forum we discuss about how Religion affects Relationships. Some of us have experienced outrageous behaviors that questioned our intelligence, patience and choices and yet "the chemistry" didn't evaporate....

How Science explains that?


In this case it would help to consider the brain as a computer (which is, more or less). Our love for a person may be a program that we install and it runs all the time in the traybar. It may demand more or less of our computer's memory depending on the situation. It is possible to uninstall it sometime, either in whole or just a few add-ons it may have. But of course it is possible that we didn't remove it completely and it is still running, although we may be unaware of it. It could be slowing down our system, like a virus, while we think we have uninstalled it ;)

One more demonstration of my metaphor-creating abilities :D

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by rachaella


Just one little change - commitment and intimacy together is "companionate love", there's also passion alone which is "infatuation", commitment alone which is "empty love", and intimacy alone which is "liking" Oops--thanks for the correction--that will teach me to post seriously without my notes.

edited to add...having looked at your profile, it seems you would be a good person to get an opinion from on this matter. What do you think about this model? Is there another you prefer? Do you think the researchers are wasting their time? I look forward to your input.

[Checkmite]

Mercutio: I agree.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Ok I have a question not only towards you Joshua.

What happens when we stop loving somebody. Where does this chemistry go?

Also, in another thread in the P&R forum we discuss about how Religion affects Relationships. Some of us have experienced outrageous behaviors that questioned our intelligence, patience and choices and yet "the chemistry" didn't evaporate....

How Science explains that?

Well wait...when I said "chemistry", I meant that after research, scientists could be able to say "this chemical reaction in the frontal lobe of the brain (for example) indicates the subject is experiencing what is commonly referred to as love". I already said earlier that it's unlikely (in my opinion) that science can quantify the exact causes of that chemical reaction. So when we stop loving somebody, science couldn't explain why; all they would be able to say is that the chemical process isn't occurring anymore.

[El Greco]

Ok, since I didn't encounter any strong opposition to my rationalizing of the mechanisms of love, I will assume that with a little introspection we can all identify -to a certain degree- the earthy, tangible and perhaps even mercenary reasons that have led us to select and love our current (or a previous) mate.

So, I will proceed to what has been the latent question from the beginning: What if these "love-inducing" factors disappear ? Are you going to to stay by the side of the chosen mate even if you are fully aware of the fact that the vanishing quality is what attracted you to him/her in the first place ? Examples:


You fell in love with someone because she was very beautiful. Because of an accident she becomes disfigured. Can you still love her ?
You fell in love with someone because you were seducted by the power and the self-confidence that his belongings gave to him. He loses everything. Can you still love him ?
You have been an insecure teenager but you met this guy who gave you all the love you needed and as result you loved him back. Now you have grown up and you are no longer insecure and fragile. You realize you don't really have much in common with this person. Can you still love him ?
You had loved your wife because she used to like the same stuff you did and the two of you had been doing a lot of things together: Cinema, hiking, sports, etc. But after a few years you realize that you don't seem to enjoy the same activities anymore. Do you still love her ?


I realize that the initial passion will inevitably fade with time. But I'm talking about something else here, the loss of a significant characteristic of the other person, something that may well be completely independent of time. For example, the rich boyfriend you first met 6 months ago, has suddenly lost everything.

Assuming that there are no kids or other responsibilities that would force you to stay together, would you dump someone in any of the above cases ? Is an instantaneous event like a disfiguring accident or a bankruptcy enough to sweep away what would have been an "eternal love" ?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Even if it is reducible ultimately to brain chemistry (or ultimately to natural selection, take your pick of structural or functional ultimate causes), I don't think that is a useful level of analysis. The problem is not at the level of neurochemistry, but at a definition of love. The neurobiologist might be able to identify the chemicals involved in the feeling of "being in love" (one author has termed this feeling "limerance", a term I love--to no one's surprise), but as has been stated on this thread, not all loving relationships involve that feeling. So we have other feelings, other behaviors, each of which is of course reducible to brain chemistry...but of course, we won't be able to point to one neurotransmitter or one pathway and say "there--that is love".



I've told you; chemistry has nothing to do with love. The fact that the feeling of love might precipitate certain activity in the brain and a higher level of a certain chemical does not mean that love is such activity or is this chemical.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio


The trick of defining love is to recognize that it is a category label for a number of different behaviors (I use the word "behavior" as a radical behaviorist, including thinking, feeling, remembering, as well as sonnet-writing, singing underneath balconies, staring deeply into obsidian eyes, etc.). When we learn the word "love", we learn it in all these contexts, and we necessarily learn to label our feelings imperfectly (because those who teach us the labels for what we feel do not have access to our feelings themselves).



I rather suspect we have an innate understanding of what love is.



We say that we do these things, feel this way, because of love, when in fact the causation goes the other way; we call it love because we do these things and feel this way. Of course, I expect Interesting Ian to disagree.



WOW! You really are stupid aren't you??



That said, there have been a number of attempts at defining love in such a manner as to include all of what the category means. One current model is Sternberg's triangular theory, which uses a triangular model (duh), the corners of which are labeled "intimacy", "passion" and "commitment".


It means something more than any of those things. Tell Mr Sternberg he is stupid.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Well wait...when I said "chemistry", I meant that after research, scientists could be able to say "this chemical reaction in the frontal lobe of the brain (for example) indicates the subject is experiencing what is commonly referred to as love". I already said earlier that it's unlikely (in my opinion) that science can quantify the exact causes of that chemical reaction. So when we stop loving somebody, science couldn't explain why; all they would be able to say is that the chemical process isn't occurring anymore.

Nor can it explain why we start loving someone. The reason being is that it has nothing to do with science. Science deals with the physical world only. It could only explain love if the world is physically closed ie if you think we're all robots where everything we ever do, including loving people, is determined by some algorithm.

So, what's it like to be a robot?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Nor can it explain why we start loving someone. The reason being is that it has nothing to do with science. Science deals with the physical world only. It could only explain love if the world is physically closed ie if you think we're all robots where everything we ever do, including loving people, is determined by some algorithm.

So, what's it like to be a robot?

Since you obviously agree with my point of view, why are you trying to initiate an argument? Just for the hell of it?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

WOW! You really are stupid aren't you??
I really do love you, Interesting Ian.*


...this is the exact same argument you and I have had over defining consciousness. I won't derail this thread to do that all over again.

*edited to add...I mean this seriously, not sarcastically, in case it was unclear.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Oops--thanks for the correction--that will teach me to post seriously without my notes.

edited to add...having looked at your profile, it seems you would be a good person to get an opinion from on this matter. What do you think about this model? Is there another you prefer? Do you think the researchers are wasting their time? I look forward to your input.

I think this is a good model though any model is going to be incomplete and every relationship, particularly long-term ones are going to go through phases when the relationship will resemble one state more than another. I think also a problem with this model is perhaps that "consummate love" is something that many people expect to have throughout a long-term committed relationship and that's simply an unrealistic expectation. Another problem is the assumption that "sex" necessarily fits into the passion section of the model whereas its really that the sex of a long term couple in the companionate state would have a different quality than that of a newer couple possibly in romantic or fatuate love. This is also why I corrected your definition of "friendship" because companionate love encompasses more than friendship. Those are my thoughts on the subject of Sternberg's Triangular Model of Love.