Philosophy of Love

[Kerrie]

Is there such a thing as true love at first sight, or does true love take time? I personally feel that love is something that grows and is not instant, although others would disagree because of their own experiences...love is on my mind as I have officially become engaged to the love of my life this past week[:))]

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Kerrie
I have officially become engaged to the love of my life this past week[:))]

[:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)]

CONGRATULATIONS!

[:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)]

[Another God]

Congrats to you.
I always thought of love as something whic occurs over a long time etc. It makes most sense. How can you be expected to love something which you don't even know?

But I have recently changed my philosophy somewhat. I now believe that there is 'Recognition of Love at first sight.' As in, you can tell straight away whether you would be able to fall in love with someone or not. Of course, you can't BE in love with someone at first sight...you don't even know what you are in love with, but after several moments of conversation, you quickyl get that feeling which says to you "Yep...this person is awesome" or not... And from there, its only a matter of time.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Kerrie
Is there such a thing as true love at first sight, or does true love take time? I personally feel that love is something that grows and is not instant, although others would disagree because of their own experiences...love is on my mind as I have officially become engaged to the love of my life this past week[:))]

I think what happens is learning. Learning must happen first. One must learn what they love before they can love something or someone.

Over time one becomes experienced in what turns their crank. Say its dark hair or blonde or curly red hair. Next say its a high forehead or shiney skin or low cheekbones with a stone imbedded in the lip.

Now say those preferences have deep seated roots in the person who is looking for love or willing to experience it.

They look for those features... but they also look for the attributes that come with a person who fulfills their physical ideas of something to love.

Say those attributes are social engagement or introvertedness or a good hearty laugh... etc... these will play a part in the first moments of meeting a person to love.

Say you love the Yang Se river. Say the mountains and the mist really turn you on. Say you go there because you intitially fell in love with the documentary you saw about the river. Say you go there to continue exploring your love for the place and the draw it has on you. Now say you get there and there are 18 trillion mosquitos, SARS victims and a flood because of non-stop rain.

Do you still love the Yang Se river? Or do you love the documentary you saw of it?

Some one who really commited to loving the Yang Se would take all the adversities with it and love it and continue to explore it to make sure this was their love.

They'd go up the river and a wind would blow and the sun would come out and it would get better. Then it might get dark and spooky, bandits might rob you or worse... all on the Yang Se river. Would you still love the river?

(edit)PS: I'm not too sure but I think what happens is that we love the experience of love... probably more than the stimulus that evokes the "love" response.

Kerry, please define "love" as it is used in your opening post. Thanks.

[Sourire]

Originally posted by Another God
Congrats to you.
I always thought of love as something whic occurs over a long time etc. It makes most sense. How can you be expected to love something which you don't even know?

But I have recently changed my philosophy somewhat. I now believe that there is 'Recognition of Love at first sight.' As in, you can tell straight away whether you would be able to fall in love with someone or not. Of course, you can't BE in love with someone at first sight...you don't even know what you are in love with, but after several moments of conversation, you quickyl get that feeling which says to you "Yep...this person is awesome" or not... And from there, its only a matter of time.

FIRST OFF...............congrats!!!!! That is just awesome!!!! [o)]

I have to agree in that there may not be such a thing where you know the first time you lock eyes on the person but I do believe that within a short amount of time.... a couple of minutes or a couple of days you have either subconsciously made up your mind as to weather this is someone that has potential or someone who does not have a snowballs chance..... I think that men sometimes take longer to admit then woman but I really hate to generalize.[o)] [o)]

[Zantra]

Love at first sight? cmon people[g)]

There is LUST at first sight not love. You can be attracted to someone, but without actually talking to them, it's all physical, and that's called lust.

I'm currently engaged, and I can say for sure that it wasn't love at first sight. I mean maybe it was lust[;)] But definitely not love. That's something that happens gradually over time.

[maximus]

as i have said before, i don't "believe" in love. i recognize that it exist, of course, but i find it can be described in different terms. i would catogorize all feelings of love to being ways of getting that which we all need as biological entities: sex (primarily this), social acceptance, and freedom from loneliness.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by maximus
as i have said before, i don't "believe" in love. i recognize that it exist, of course, but i find it can be described in different terms. i would catogorize all feelings of love to being ways of getting that which we all need as biological entities: sex (primarily this), social acceptance, and freedom from loneliness.

Do you believe in pain?

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Do you believe in pain?

do i believe in pain? what is that supposed to mean? of course i do, it can be observed in the brain and is felt daily. what are you trying to get out of this? pain is not as abstract idea as love.

note to my previous post: i maily covered romantic love, but as for brotherly love, or love of parents, i'd say it is evolutionarily favorable that we develope bonds between our parents, and also socially favorable if we are able to make freinds from aquantainces.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by maximus
is felt daily

So is love.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So is love.


as i said before, i don't disbelieve that the emotion of love exists, but that it is merely biological and pschological, and not the mystical experience we have made it out to be.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by maximus
as i said before, i don't disbelieve that the emotion of love exists, but that it is merely biological and pschological, and not the mystical experience we have made it out to be.

Love is just as real as pain.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Love is just as real as pain.

okay. that's not being disputed here. can you deny that my points in my earlier posts are invalid? pain is physical and tangible, and so is love.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by maximus
okay. that's not being disputed here. can you deny that my points in my earlier posts are invalid? pain is physical and tangible, and so is love.

I don't think that evolution can account for the scope of the concept. Can you prove how I feel when I'm in pain, or are your observations limited to certain measurable quantities that hardly represent the scope of the experience?

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't think that evolution can account for the scope of the concept.

evolution is but one factor that can explain some factors of the "love" experience. as i have said before, there are also pschological reasons, along with sexual reasons. (most of which are subconcious)

Can you prove how I feel when I'm in pain?

to a degree, yes. observation of the brain can show whether you are actually experiencing pain. along with other biological factors, such as histamine levels.

or are your observations limited to certain measurable quantities that hardly represent the scope of the experience?

they are limited, but that is primarily technological limitations. theoretically, upon observing the brain we could know all feelings, and also their severity. but we're getting off topic.

----------

i shall repeat my previous post and claim that love is a physical and tangible emotion. can you disagree?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by maximus
theoretically

So you have proposed a new theory to support your hypothesis? [;)]

Edit for poetry

[hypnagogue]

I'm not sure I follow arguments that run along this line: 'I don't believe in love (or emotion X) because it is simply reducible to the product of evolutionary/societal/etc pressures.'
Certainly, love fulfills a function in the ongoing survival of our species. But does that degrade the personal, subjective experience of love?
Birds have developed the capability of flight 'merely' as a means of survival, whereas we humans have invented hang gliders just for the hell of it. Is our flight any better than the birds'?
The way I look at it is that natural selection works to keep a species alive. In our case, evolution has just happened to stumble upon this wonderful emotion called love and has harnessed it as a means for directing behavior in a manner beneficial for the species. But there is no philosophically necessary link between the subjective experience and the way nature has happened to associate it with certain behaviors. Maybe for people in Bizzaro World, sitting down and looking at the sky a certain way activates the same chemical/neural triggers that are correlated with the subjective experience of love, even though it serves no real purpose toward survival of the species. Nonetheless, the people of Bizzaro World sit down and look at the sky a lot because it just feels so nice. To them, the evolutionary causes and effects are irrelevant before the actual FEELING of being in love.
Analagously, it's just silly to say that the inquisitive mind that looks at nature in awe or the sympathetic mind that sees a piece of itself in a poem is nothing special just because these functions of the brain have developed for so-and-so reason, or just because these emotions are reducible to chemical reactions. It's missing the point. Science tells us that if we want to describe the objective world well, then the subjective is taboo; the inverse also holds.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I'm not sure I follow arguments that run along this line:

I want to respond more later, but for now... I was really just trying to argue that one cannot reduce life to chemistry and equations based on logic. This requires a leap of faith as do all philosophies of such things.

[hypnagogue]

I agree... I was responding to maximus's posts. Sorry for the confusion.

[maximus]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I'm not sure I follow arguments that run along this line: 'I don't believe in love (or emotion X) because it is simply reducible to the product of evolutionary/societal/etc pressures.'
Certainly, love fulfills a function in the ongoing survival of our species. But does that degrade the personal, subjective experience of love?


you, also, have mistaken my point. i am simply stating that there is no reason to reduce love to a mysical experience that is beyond the reach of science or logic. there is no magic,and love is no exception. it is highly purposeful (and beautiful) but it is simply, imo, very rational.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by maximus
you, also, have mistaken my point. i am simply stating that there is no reason to reduce love to a mysical experience that is beyond the reach of science or logic. there is no magic,and love is no exception. it is highly purposeful (and beautiful) but it is simply, imo, very rational.

I understand this point, but do you argue that you arrive at this conclusion through logic, or by a leap of faith? My point is that just as are more romantic or mystical explanations, your position is a faith argument; not one of pure logic.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I understand this point, but do you argue that you arrive at this conclusion through logic, or by a leap of faith? My point is that just as are more romantic or mystical explanations, your position is a faith argument; not one of pure logic.


your point is well taken,but i think "leap of faith" is a little strong. i have formulated a theory, and it is, imo, more scientifically sound of an idea than mytical magic. it is also a logical process (perhaps rational is a better word). it makes sense that evolutionary and psychological (along with a strong influence from a society) events could produce a misinterpretted feeling of love.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by maximus
your point is well taken,but i think "leap of faith" is a little strong.

Perhaps, but this could easily be a matter of perspective also.
You know, the old observer dependence problem.

i have formulated a theory, and it is, imo, more scientifically sound of an idea than mytical magic.

Magic is sometimes just a word used to describe that which we don't understand. And of course, nothing mystical would be scientific by nature. But, perhaps one day what is now mystical will be understood as physical.

it is also a logical process (perhaps rational is a better word). it makes sense that evolutionary and psychological (along with a strong influence from a society) events could produce a misinterpretted feeling of love.

Well, now that I have all of that off of my chest, I am interested in hearing more. [6)]

[Zantra]

Only here could something like love be reduced to an equation (I fully expect one to be put forth shortly). Love is not an equation, it is not logical, and it's not meant to make sense. You can no more understand love fully than you can predict the weather. It's not meant to be analyzed like that. to say that it's nothing but a chemical process is like saying chocolate fudge is just nourishment, or that beer is just an intoxicant. And I suspect those who are trying to reduce it to an equation have never been in love. You cannot and should not trivialize it as such. It's like saying God is just "some guy" (if you believe in him).

[maximus]

Originally posted by Zantra
Only here could something like love be reduced to an equation (I fully expect one to be put forth shortly). Love is not an equation, it is not logical, and it's not meant to make sense. You can no more understand love fully than you can predict the weather. It's not meant to be analyzed like that. to say that it's nothing but a chemical process is like saying chocolate fudge is just nourishment, or that beer is just an intoxicant. And I suspect those who are trying to reduce it to an equation have never been in love. You cannot and should not trivialize it as such. It's like saying God is just "some guy" (if you believe in him).

and i completely, 100%, disageee with everything you said ([;)]). i believe it is this sentiment that makes it impossible to understand. we can (and do) predict the weather. and we can explain the reasons behind our love for fudge or beer. you are correct however, in your assumtion that i have never been in "romantic love", but it takes an outside obsever to accurately describe something, does it not? i haven't been corrupted by it! [:D]

[Zantra]

Originally posted by maximus
and i completely, 100%, disageee with everything you said ([;)]). i believe it is this sentiment that makes it impossible to understand. we can (and do) predict the weather. and we can explain the reasons behind our love for fudge or beer. you are correct however, in your assumtion that i have never been in "romantic love", but it takes an outside obsever to accurately describe something, does it not? i haven't been corrupted by it! [:D]

Ok you can reduce it to those simple terms, but to do so is self-defeating. The experience of it is something a lot more profound than biochemical response. Just like chocolate and beer, we CAN reduce it to simplest terms, but we DON'T because then it looses it's emphasis. Do we say "oh I had a feew too many beers the other day and this raise my blood alcohol content and decrased my oxygenation levels? No we say "I got F*****D up the other night." Same applies to love.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok you can reduce it to those simple terms, but to do so is self-defeating. The experience of it is something a lot more profound than biochemical response. Just like chocolate and beer, we CAN reduce it to simplest terms, but we DON'T because then it looses it's emphasis. Do we say "oh I had a feew too many beers the other day and this raise my blood alcohol content and decrased my oxygenation levels? No we say "I got F*****D up the other night." Same applies to love.

then what's the point of all of physics? did the thing fall because of a warping of spacetime (yes, by the way) (and yes to all your above similar quotes) or did it just hurt like hell when it hit you? what you are saying is nonsense to me. of course you got "F****D up" becuase you BAC increased and oxygen levels decreased! the feeling and emotion of being "F****D up" can be reduced to terms of biological and nuerological activity.

[jammieg]

Nature evolved love or giving to others of a close relationship without direct expectation of apparent return, but if love were not effective we would not know love so I suspect love is of long term benefit of greater degree provided it is mutual and that's the catch, it is evolutionarily a practical mechanism that helps us see past the immediate disadvantages to the greater long term gains of mutual cooperation. Love is a rewarding biochemical bond of familiarity. Even though I hold this view to be fairly accurate and practical I wouldn't sum it up like that when in love with someone but rather just enjoy it because it is one of the best things in life.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by maximus
of course you got "F****D up" becuase you BAC increased and oxygen levels decreased! the feeling and emotion of being "F****D up" can be reduced to terms of biological and nuerological activity.

According to your completely unsubstantiated theory.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by jammieg
Nature evolved love or giving to others of a close relationship without direct expectation of apparent return, but if love were not effective we would not know love so I suspect love is of long term benefit of greater degree provided it is mutual and that's the catch, it is evolutionarily a practical mechanism that helps us see past the immediate disadvantages to the greater long term gains of mutual cooperation. Love is a rewarding biochemical bond of familiarity. Even though I hold this view to be fairly accurate and practical I wouldn't sum it up like that when in love with someone but rather just enjoy it because it is one of the best things in life.

I think that sums it up for me as well. I'm not saying you "can't" describe it that way, I'm simply saying that love is not necessarily thought of in straight scientific terms by most. But hey, whatever toots your tugboat. As for me, I'll just enjoy it[:D]

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by maximus
then what's the point of all of physics? did the
thing fall because of a warping of spacetime (yes, by the
way) (and yes to all your above similar quotes) or did it
just hurt like hell when it hit you? what you are saying is
nonsense to me. of course you got "F****D up" becuase you
BAC increased and oxygen levels decreased! the feeling and
emotion of being "F****D up" can be reduced to terms of
biological and nuerological activity.

Your example of the falling apple is a good example of
exactly the point you are disregarding in your argument. We
explain the falling apple in physical terms because it is
(or can be best seen as) a purely physical phenomenon; as
far as we can tell, it resides only in the objective world
and there is no subjective component to it. Love, on the
other hand, is an entirely different matter. You can attempt
to describe it with objective explanations of why it exists,
but this is missing its most fundamental, essential aspect,
which is precisely the subjective experience of it.

Are you familiar with Thomas Nagel's discussion on 'what it
is like to be a bat'? We can reason that a bat experiences
the world much differently from us humans based on the
observation that its principle source of information is
sound, not light; we can even perform experiments to refine
our notions of exactly how a bat's hearing functions.
However, when you get down to it, there is no way to get a really good idea of how a bat experiences the world other than actually being a bat yourself. Science cannot adequately describe states of
consciousness. You can tell someone that if they raise their
blood alcohol levels enough, then their bodily oxygen levels
will decrease, and as a result they will ultimately feel
less inhibited, lose some degree of motor coordination, etc.
But they can never really get at the true essence of
what it is, what it feels like, to be drunk unless
they go out and do it themselves. The same holds for love,
or any other subjective, experiential state of consciousness
for that matter.

[jammieg]

Welcome to physics forums Hypnagogue.
If there were a complete scientific explanation in great detail for how love works would you want to read it? Does a sound scientific explanation of a thing take something away from its experience and mystery and joy and fascination?
My view of love is most likely riddled with flaws, but I don't think it is a bad thing to attempt to understand things objectively or through experience but that it is more a reflection of personal taste of the individual wether they prefer feeling or fact more, most likely it is a bad thing at either extreme of indulgence and a bad thing to assume what is good for one is good for others.
I do agree that the best way to understand love is to practice love, not "analyze it to death" as my mother often says, I think she is more of a feeling person and we clash a lot, but it's curious to me why should analysis be associated with death to some people and not others.

[hypnagogue]

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to understand subjective states in some objective sense-- only that, by definition, an objective understanding is only complementary to the subjective understanding and shouldn't be taken as a 'superior' explanation. In fact, I am very interested in the links between objective brain states and subjective states of consciousness. However, I also recognize that any objective explanation of consciousness in terms of cognitive science necessarily omits the essence of consciousness, which is actually experiencing it-- so saying that love is 'merely' a dance of atomic particles is missing the forest for the trees. We can imagine that at some point in the future a very sophisticated automated intelligence will be programmed with all the facts and theories we have about cognition-- but unless that automated intelligence is itself conscious, how good of an understanding of consciousness does it really have?

[Royce]

A couple of things about love that have been overlooked or at least not mentioned in this thread so far is that "lesser" animals, such as pets are every bit as capable of giving and receiving love as we are. Please explain this in evolutionary or objective terms. If you have not experienced such love do not claim that it doesn't exist or is just a matter of being physically cared for, fed etc. I won't buy it for a second.

The other thing neglected so far is that love is not just an emotion and learning experience. If soul mates meet, they can indeed recognized each other and "fall in love" instantly. I have never experienced it but know friends that have.

Also love has power and force that can be felt, sensed and cause physical changes in our bodies that are not just hormones or chemistry. Love can and does heal and reduce if not take away pain. Love can be directed to specific place in our own bodies or that of another and "Make it all better." This is real and it works and actually does makes it better. It is not just distracting or emotional. It is real.

One other point, we humans at least if not all mammals require love affection and touching to live and thrive. Unloved and untouched babies often die or remain hopelessly scared for life. Life long loving mates often die within months of each other.

There is so much more to love than mere chemistry or even emotion. To talk of it that way is like calling the Grand Canyon a hole in the ground, which I have also heard.

One othe rpoint pain can not be remembered. We can remember being in pain and how sever it may have been but we can't actually remember and reexperience the pain itself. We never ever forget the feeling of loving or being loved.

[Another God]

Hypnagogue has started talking about exactly what I was going to point out. There is the subjective experience of Love, and then there is the objective reality of it. The reality, is that love is just chemical reactions in the brain. Sorry to destroy all of the idealistic fantasies out there, but this is just the way it is.

The subjective experience of these chemical processes though, yeah, sure thats something pretty special. Just understand that the subjective experience comes from the objective reality. The objective reality in no way takes away the subjective beauty of it, its just a fact that the subjective cannot exist without the objective.

An example: Lightning had been subjectively experienced for thousands of years by humans. Back in ancient greece, they hypothesised that Thor caused lightning. In their minds, the objective cause of lightning was Thor, and lightning itself was the resultant experience. These days, science has told us that electricity (charged ions etc) causes Lightning, and that lightning itself was the resultant experience.

In both cases, the objective truth has to be hypothesised from the subjective experience. We have one on one contact with the subjective, and from that we have to infer the objective. The fact remains though, that without the objective, the subjective wouldn't exist...

So, the subjective experience of love has always been with us, no matter how we think it happens...But the truth is, it happens in an entirely unromantic objective way.

And yes, I have been in love, I am in love, and I am still not self-delusional enough to go about convincing myself that it should be treated as anything more special than everything else in the universe which is subject to the same laws of logic and rationality.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
A couple of things about love that have been overlooked or at least not mentioned in this thread so far is that "lesser" animals, such as pets are every bit as capable of giving and receiving love as we are. Please explain this in evolutionary or objective terms. If you have not experienced such love do not claim that it doesn't exist or is just a matter of being physically cared for, fed etc. I won't buy it for a second.Whats to buy? Evolutionarily, it makes sense to explain love as having evolved to fulfil this need. It doesn't detract from the experience of love...if anything, it highlights how important these aspects of our life are by being such a strong experience. Obviously, because we FEEL love so strongly, the aspects of love which accompany the feeling must be very important to survival.


The other thing neglected so far is that love is not just an emotion and learning experience. If soul mates meet, they can indeed recognized each other and "fall in love" instantly. I have never experienced it but know friends that have.
What do you mean by soul mate? Do you believe that there are two individuals actually 'designed' for each other or something? well, if you believe this, then we had all better start looking, because there are over 6 billion people on earth and at most we all know probably up to 200 at most...I'm sure we never even SEE 99% of all the people on the planet let alone meet them.
If you mean soul mate as in 'Someone with whom everything works perfectly', and you accept that there could be any number of thousands of people with whom this compatibility would work, then I would agree with that. And as I said earlier, I believe you can 'quickly' recognise that love is likely, although I don't believe you actually fall in love straight away. How can you love something you know nothing about?



Also love has power and force that can be felt, sensed and cause physical changes in our bodies that are not just hormones or chemistry. Love can and does heal and reduce if not take away pain. Love can be directed to specific place in our own bodies or that of another and "Make it all better." This is real and it works and actually does makes it better. It is not just distracting or emotional. It is real. How do you know it is not just hormose or chemistry? Do you realise that every single part of our body is 'just chemistry'? I mean Literally every single part of our body, is just chemistry... So how can love be so damn special as to not involve the chemistry of our body? Are you invoking some new unknown force of the universe, somehow tapped into by the evolution of chemical reactions, and used to bond two collections of such chemical reactions in some beneficial way?

I suggest that it is more likely, that love changes certain aspects of our brain chemistry, causing the body to stress less, and therefore heal more. The brain can do more than the average person understands, and it does it all without needing to believe in psychic phenomenon, it does it all through those dull old chemicals that no one likes to accept as the essence of all life.


There is so much more to love than mere chemistry or even emotion. To talk of it that way is like calling the Grand Canyon a hole in the ground, which I have also heard.
The grand canyon IS just a hole in the ground, the planet earth IS just a rock orbiting around something which IS just a collection of hydrogen reacting with itself, and love IS just an emotion caused by chemistry...in the objective sense. But to look at the grand canyon, or the Earth as a whole, is a truley remarkable experience. To understand the enormity of the sun is awesome. To feel love....is unbelievable.

Love 'just is a chemical reaction', and it is the most remarkable experience of a 'just a chemical reaction' that there ever was. It can be both at once. They are not mutually exclusive.


One othe rpoint pain can not be remembered. We can remember being in pain and how sever it may have been but we can't actually remember and reexperience the pain itself. We never ever forget the feeling of loving or being loved. I can remember pain. In fact, i completely disagree with this paragraph because the first girl I ever fell in love with, didn't fall in love with me in return, and eventually left me for another guy... Everytime I think back to that, all i feel is intense pain. My very definition of love is "The most pain you can imagine", because when you are in love, every little waiver off that perfect path down absolute happiness hurts like all hell...Emotions seem to increase ten fold when they are felt in the light of love, and pain is the most commonly felt one.

Its sorta how I check to make sure I am in love... :If this person was to leave me...how would I feel? Judge the degree of pain you think you would feel, and that indicates how much you care for them...

[Kerrie]

AG, i certainly agree with what you are saying, but you have a tone in that the subjective sense of love is less then the objective outcomes of love...

what i mean by this is the subjective feelings of love ARE important in helping us bond with another not only for the biological urges of reproduction, but it seems that monogamy is a part of our humanistic ways (nevermind the damned divorce rates! that has to do with society) in that it supports stability of a team of two which has enormous outcomes in many ways...

love in a monogamous ways also is beneficial in a world today where STD's are at an ultimate high...

soulmates~i used to believe in this term, and i think MANY people can be considered that "soulmate" because of similar ways of thinking, similar likes and dislikes, similar backgrounds, etc...now of course, if one is to find that deep connection, i would never recommend to ignore it [;)]

first and foremost of my beliefs of love is you cannot truly love another until you love yourself...

[Zantra]

[I]first and foremost of my beliefs of love is you cannot truly love another until you love yourself

I agree 100%

[Zantra]

Someone mentioned that the subjective can be explained logically.

Ok then explain why someone sacrifices themselves for another? Why mothers will die to save thier children, why lovers will do the same, why someone will take the most illogical choice sacrificing, thier well being, and ignoring the innate characteristics of self-preservation all in in the name of love. Explain what chemical characteristic causes us to make choices which go against our own natural insticts, thus contradicting our own nature. And i don't mean biological reproduction, because love is absolutely not required for that to occur.

Break that down into scientific terms for me please. Take your time..

[Gale]

What do you mean by soul mate? Do you believe that there are two individuals actually 'designed' for each other or something? well, if you believe this, then we had all better start looking, because there are over 6 billion people on earth and at most we all know probably up to 200 at most

Well first off, there's lots of different opinions about sould mates and what it is to have one. To me a soul mate is someone your designed for. If it's in your destiny to be with them this life, then you'll meet them without having to introduce yourself to the other 6 billion people of the world. In this case, i think anyone would 'fall in love at first sight' as soon as they saw their soul mates.

One othe rpoint pain can not be remembered. We can remember being in pain and how sever it may have been but we can't actually remember and reexperience the pain itself. We never ever forget the feeling of loving or being loved.

I think thats terribly subjective and depends on the person. I can think through pleanty of emotions. Pain, love, anything. I personally can think and sort of experience anything i try to long enough. I learned how to ski mostly just by thinking about it, then attempting what i thought, then thinking some more. took me an hour to get down half the mountain, but once i got there, i skiied as well as my sister who had taken lessons for two years. I think this experience also brings up ideas about objective and subjectiveness.

I aggree that love is just several chemical processes that lead a person to feel 'good' but i also think there is much much more to it. I think that there is something more to emotion that science has yet to understand. I think that explains human kinds feelings towards god, toward love, and towards any irrational beliefs that we reufuse to give up.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Kerrie
the subjective feelings of love ARE important in helping us bond with another not only for the biological urges of reproduction, but it seems that monogamy is a part of our humanistic ways (nevermind the damned divorce rates! that has to do with society) in that it supports stability of a team of two which has enormous outcomes in many ways...

love in a monogamous ways also is beneficial in a world today where STD's are at an ultimate high... Isn't that precisely the sort of thing which is objectively useful? That is biologically beneficial...which is all I mean. So there are plenty of reasons why we would have evolved the love emotion, and it no doubt can be described objectively...
And still it would have its subjective feeling, no matter how well we objectively describe it.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok then explain why someone sacrifices themselves for another? Why mothers will die to save thier children, why lovers will do the same, why someone will take the most illogical choice sacrificing, thier well being, and ignoring the innate characteristics of self-preservation all in in the name of love. Explain what chemical characteristic causes us to make choices which go against our own natural insticts, thus contradicting our own nature. And i don't mean biological reproduction, because love is absolutely not required for that to occur.

Break that down into scientific terms for me please. Take your time.. No.
Like really...Do you believe in gravity? OK, break that down for me and describe it in scientific terms. Tell me exactly how objects attract each other at a distance, instantly, and tell me how they know how large each object is etc...

You can't do it can you? But does that mean you deny its existence? I am not a neurochemist, no one here is that I have yet met. And even if someone was, I doubt they could explain it anyway. We simply do not know how or why yet, but that does not stand as proof that it doesn't happen.

But sacrificing your self for others is present in numerous non-love situations anyway. In wars, people will save their mates as best they can for example. And then you talk about that innate characteristic of self preservation: What about the millions of suicidal people out there these days? What are they in love with?

The brain is a complex, strange thing...We can't explain it in scientific terms for you because we don't understand it yet, and even if we did, we couldn't explain it to you without first spending 5 years explaining fundamental brain chemistry to you first.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Gale17
Well first off, there's lots of different opinions about sould mates and what it is to have one. To me a soul mate is someone your designed for. If it's in your destiny to be with them this life, then you'll meet them without having to introduce yourself to the other 6 billion people of the world. In this case, i think anyone would 'fall in love at first sight' as soon as they saw their soul mates.

'Designed for'.....designed by what exactly?

Destiny.... Destined how?

Precisley what mechanism is it that you are postulating controls these things? How are two people, before each of their births designed perfectly for each others later adult life? What controls their lives so that they 1. Cross paths 2. Recognise that they are perfect for each other without even knowing each other?

You've got a lot to explain there...

[Gale]

'Designed for'.....designed by what exactly?

..ok, ok, my bad. It's a faith issue really. I believe in souls. i believe some souls come from like... the same fabric, or something like that. those souls, are soul mates. i believe some souls live once, others live many times and continuously learn life lessons so that eventually they will learn all and then... i dunno and then something really cool happens. i think of jesus as one soul that learned all life's little lessons so whatever happened to him... As for designed by... well, i don't know really. i have some really wild theories, but i'd doubt anyone would believe them as i do. is you care to know... i'd share, but when i consider life and all that i don't usually keep my theories much in the realms of science's reality.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Gale17
i have some really wild theories, but i'd doubt anyone would believe them as i do. is you care to know... i'd share, but when i consider life and all that i don't usually keep my theories much in the realms of science's reality.
Well, although I do, I don't believe that it is necessary to do so, as long as you keep your wild theories within the realm of rationality and logic.

If they stay within those bounds, then I think a bit of occams razor helps point out the reasonable answer...

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Another God
No.
Like really...Do you believe in gravity? OK, break that down for me and describe it in scientific terms. Tell me exactly how objects attract each other at a distance, instantly, and tell me how they know how large each object is etc...

You can't do it can you? But does that mean you deny its existence? I am not a neurochemist, no one here is that I have yet met. And even if someone was, I doubt they could explain it anyway. We simply do not know how or why yet, but that does not stand as proof that it doesn't happen.

But sacrificing your self for others is present in numerous non-love situations anyway. In wars, people will save their mates as best they can for example. And then you talk about that innate characteristic of self preservation: What about the millions of suicidal people out there these days? What are they in love with?

The brain is a complex, strange thing...We can't explain it in scientific terms for you because we don't understand it yet, and even if we did, we couldn't explain it to you without first spending 5 years explaining fundamental brain chemistry to you first.

But that's my entire point (read my previous posts) Basically people are trying to look at love in a logical, scientific sense when it doesn't require it. It's love-cm'on people.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zantra
But that's my entire point (read my previous posts) Basically people are trying to look at love in a logical, scientific sense when it doesn't require it. It's love-cm'on people. Doesn't require it? Isn't that sorta against the whole principle of science? Everything which exists needs to be explained scientifically, otherwise it will all remain mystery and superstition.

And as superficially pleasing as that is to so many people, the truth is that superstition causes more pain and suffering than anyone is willing to accept.

[Royce]

Been out of town and touch for a while, sorry for the late replies.

AG, et al, When i said that we don't remember pain I was talking about physical pain nor emotional pain. Your being in love and reject and still feeling and remembering the emotional pain of it is exactly what I am talking about. Sadly I and thousands of us have had similar experience and I guarentee that everyone of us remember it and the pain. We also remember the first and everytime we fall in love whether it is another person or pet.
I find this hard to think of as only hormones and chemistry and for the life of me I cannot find an evolutionary survival benefit from such pain.
Whether "soulmates" are designed for each other or met and loved in another life or are simply two people uniquely suited for one another
and instantly recognize and realized that fact doesn't matter. What matters is that it happens and is real.

As far as love healing or tempering physical pain, of course it is chemistry in action but it is the love the causes the chemistry that happens.
I can agree that love is a survival technique or stratagy as is monogamy and reproduction. I can even see that love is a product of evolution and reaching a certain minimum level of intelligence. All I am saying is that it is much more and it is and has tangable effects and results on all of us. We need love and need to love just as much as we need food and water. I agree that it is subjective. It is also objective.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Another God
Doesn't require it? Isn't that sorta against the whole principle of science? Everything which exists needs to be explained scientifically, otherwise it will all remain mystery and superstition.

And as superficially pleasing as that is to so many people, the truth is that superstition causes more pain and suffering than anyone is willing to accept.

You're right, it does require objective observation, but to regard it without taking subjectivity into account, which is what a lot of people here are doing, is to sterlize an emotion that is essential for emotional well-being.

[ph]

Kerrie

love at first sight happens and not just in a man/woman sense. i have had a love at first sight with a female (i'm not gay, just happy) and i don't know why. from my being in her presence my heart just poured out -opened. very cool. it has also happened with a male and we became very good friends.

it happened last year with a gentleman. i said YES to marriage next year. congrats to us both :)


To <b>quantumcarl</b>

if the yang see river loses its appeal based on its physical condition or the person's experience with it then it never was love was it? i like that "true love" is unconditional. we spout that but in action it's holy >wink<

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
I find this hard to think of as only hormones and chemistry and for the life of me I cannot find an evolutionary survival benefit from such pain.Thats OK Royce, it understandable that you find it hard to think of only as hormones and chemistry. You only have the subjectuve experience of it. An objective experience is an oxymoron. I just hope that you understand that an argument from indignation holds no actual weight behind it. I mean, just because you find it hard to believe, can't be taken as an argument against the claim that that is all that love and pain are.Whether "soulmates" are designed for each other or met and loved in another life or are simply two people uniquely suited for one another
and instantly recognize and realized that fact doesn't matter. What matters is that it happens and is real.Whooa..."what" happens though? What do you mean by soulmate?As far as love healing or tempering physical pain, of course it is chemistry in action but it is the love the causes the chemistry that happens.OK, so u agree that there is a correlation between the physical attributes to love/pain and love/pain itself, but you are claiming that the love/pain causes the physical, and not the other way around.

To make this claim meaningful, you now need to explain exactly what it is that Love/Pain is, and how it causes the physical reactions. Because under the current scientific paradigm, the subjective experience is said to be caused by the physical, in a direct meaningful way. This explanation not only attempts to explain what love is, and how the experience arises, but it also explains why there are certain physical reactions that correlate to love/pain. With your "Love causes physical reactions" hypothesis, you not only need to explain what love is, what causes it, and where/how love exists outside of the physical, but you will need to explain why this phenomenon should interact with the physical, and then you will also need to explain HOW this phenomenon interacts with the physical.

I can agree that love is a survival technique or stratagy as is monogamy and reproduction. I can even see that love is a product of evolution and reaching a certain minimum level of intelligence. All I am saying is that it is much more and it is and has tangable effects and results on all of us. We need love and need to love just as much as we need food and water. I agree that it is subjective. It is also objective. I can't help but read this all and feel like you are saying one thing, and then saying the complete opposite and agreeing that they are both true, when one contradicts the other.

Love is not, per say, objective. Love is subjective. But as with all subjective phenomenon, it arises due to objective facts/actions/causes/reality whatever. Objectivity is the reality, and subjectivity is just what we experience of it. Love is a feeling, therefore subjective.

You said before that you couldn't see how love would evolve, and you here say that you believe that we need love as much as we need food and water. Now, we have evolved love in this way so that we need it so drastically (I don't agree as much as food and water, but thats irrelevent really, I'll agree we NEED it). So why is love so damn important that it should be so integral to our character?

What is love used for? (In my chosen order of importance)
1. Bonding Mother/Father to Child.
2. Bonding Mates
3. Bonding Brothers/Sisters
4. Last and, most certainly the least, bonding between companions.

To me, the advantage of this mechanism of bonding these particular relations is obvious. The first is important because at birth and for many years, Humans are useless. Without the loving care of our parents, we would die. No doubt. This is an obvious point for Nat Selection to remove.

The second, I am going to postulate, comes about largely because of sexual selection. Females are stuck with children when they give birth. If they can get males which are going to stick around after the birth, then they will save themselves a lot of work (+ there will be a better chance of their children surviving). So the females choose mates which stick around (Or else they let the children die of mates which left (harder to raise them), or in some cases the new partner after the last one departed killed the kids of the previous father. (Yes, all of this stuff does happen in nature. Yes we are part of nature)). So, result: Over time, females have selected males which stick around (probably achieved by selecting a mutation which tapped into the 'Child love' gene which would have been present in all of us, and allowing it to now be used as a 'Mate love' gene.) Thise 'Mate Love' gene is then present in male population, and it would then be passed into all of their offspring, males and females included...
(Just one possibility)

The Third: Sibling love. Why? Because Sibling have (statistically) half of their genes in common with us. By ensuring our siblings survive, our genes unsure they have greater chance at making it into the next generations, even if you don't make it.

The fourth: Love of friends. Why? Because your friends help you when you need it. And/Or because you have helped them out so much, that you have a lot of resources invested into them, and you want to get your payment back. You want to keep them around until they help you out.
(And don't go telling me that "Oh no, I love my friends, they are much more than that to me... blah blah blah" because how many times have 'Best Friends' been instantly disowned because they did something wrong (cheated with your wife/husband, stole from you etc) Being a best friend isn't permanent love, it is a conditional love, which is based on the condition that they help you and don't betray you.)

[Royce]

AG, The reason for the confusion is that I think love is both subjective and objective. I don't believe that we can seperate it into exclusively one or the other. IMO love is also spiritual, but thats my bag and I won't impose it here.

Another point is which came first. Is love a result of chemistry or is chemistry the result of love? I don't think that we can really tell at this point. It's the old chicken and egg delema.

As far as soul mates are concerned, I was using the term in strictly common usage. I have no idea what it really means. I know that it happens reguardless of sex or species.

While we cannot directly measure love we can measure its effects in an objective way. What I have postulated here is a well known well observed and measured phenomenon. I don't think that that is in question. I, however, don't think that we can put love under a microscope and study it scientifically because it is both objective and subjective and like an egg it can not be seperated without losing its essential integrity. To try to do so destroys and renders useless or at least meaningless the very thing we are trying to study.

There are some things in life and the universe that simply defy the scientific method. They cannot be disected, measured, analyzed or quantumized. They must be accepted on their terms alone. Love in my opinion it one of those things and probably at the head of the list.

Science is a tool with limited applicability and scope. It is not the universal method of knowledge that we would like it to be. We cannot measure everything and simply because we can not measure it does not mean that it does not exist objectively and well as subjectively. There is no, and can never be one real theory of everything.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
There are some things in life and the universe that simply defy the scientific method. What makes you think that?

I disagree [:))]

[Royce]

The fact that I believe that there is more than physical matter and energy in and to life and the universe, that there are things that are both subjective and objective and are real, that the subjective can and does effect the objective. That is what make me think that.
"There are more things under the stars, Horatio, than are drempt of by your philosophers." (or something like that.)

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Another God
What makes you think that?

I disagree [:))]


I'll answer that- Because subjective influences skew logistics of objectivity. Our perception is how we objectively define things along with logistics. That perception is altered by subjective things. Follow me?

[Royce]

Gee, I wish I'd said that, Zantra! Thanks.[:)]

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zantra
I'll answer that- Because subjective influences skew logistics of objectivity. Our perception is how we objectively define things along with logistics. That perception is altered by subjective things. Follow me?
Oh sure, so the scientific method will never make us know the objective. Fine, I'll admit to that. I am compelled to by my understanding of the objective.

But as such, since I believe the scientific method (and any other method) simply CANNOT ever allow a subjective point of view to be able to know the objective, all the sci method could possibly strive for, is to align their subjective view with the objective reality.

And I belive that is what science tries to, and does do. It takes time, and revision, and alterations of previous beliefs, but it happens.

[Royce]

Is'nt all knowledge subjective whether it be knowledge of objective reality or abstract subjective thought? We can only know in our minds or brains if you prefer. Even the measurements of the pure objective are subjective perceptions of what we believe our intruments are measuring and telling us.
This is why, inpart, I say that we can not seperate the two. One of the other reasons I believe as I do is that I am convinced that there is more to reality than objective materialism. Knowledge, logic, thought, reason, emotion, love, mind vs brain and heart,soul, spirit, whatever you prefer to call it is real but not objective. It can and does effect the real material world and thus can be indirectly measured. This IMO make it every bit *** real as the pure objective material rock we all allude to.