Is Love Just a Chemical Reaction or Something More?

[Kajahtava]

Hypothetically, say we have X, who's in a relationship with Y. Y is not sure that it's in love with X; which makes X insecure as X is. Or at least, that's what I always see around me. But think about it, wouldn't it be an advantage for X if Y wasn't? I mean, Y acts the way it acts towards Y any way, that's a given in this story, it's not dependent, and X can see this, now, if we assume that Y is not in love with X, then Y's affection and treatment of X is guaranteed to be free of pink filters, meaning that it's lasting and not just a temporary rouse, bringing a long-term gain for X. However if Y is in love with X, it could very well be a temporary hormone-based rouse that will quickly fade away.

Or at least, that's what I told a fellow student who's girlfriend is insecure, however the entire group looked at me dumbstruck there, from their perspective I was treating love calculating and coldly but I don't really see it like that, it's more feeling than anything. From what I observe around me, people that are madly in love have very superficial feelings for each other while people that aren't share a deeper connexion, shouldn't it be obvious that it would frighten me if a partner would claim to be in love with me rather than simply loving me on a more personal level? Especially if what you do together stays the same any way?

I really don't see why people always aspire that the love another feels for you is caused by chemicals rather than the hypothetical ghost inside the machine. Ideally, a romantic interest should see me mainly as a friend but be close enough for me for that whole shebang and shat.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's not really been my experience. It seems that people usually think that they are in love, or could fall in love, with someone and so start a relationship. In the relationship they get to know the person and realize that they are not in love with the person and then start looking for ways out, either consciously or unconsciously.

It seems to me that the ones who are really and truly "madly in love" with someone are the ones that will not leave the person often even when the person hurts them or treats them poorly.

 

[Kajahtava]

That's not really been my experience. It seems that people usually think that they are in love, or could fall in love, with someone and so start a relationship. In the relationship they get to know the person and realize that they are not in love with the person and then start looking for ways out, either consciously or unconsciously.

Well, we might be saying the same in different words. I commonly call this stopping to be in love with a person.

Being in love is a very chemical thing, it's a drug dependency in a way. I don't think that being in love with some one is as much loving that person, as loving the feeling that person gives you, the fact that you get the aequiv. of a mild shot of heroine every time that person enters the room.

I take it you agree that people can be conditioned in that way right? Give some one a shot of heroine or some 'reward' every time another specific person enters the room, and that person will subconsciously associate the reward with that person and thus come to 'love' that person.

It seems to me that the ones who are really and truly "madly in love" with someone are the ones that will not leave the person often even when the person hurts them or treats them poorly.

It happens yes, chemicals are more powerful than reason often. The 'machine' is more powerful than the 'ghost' if you like.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, we might be saying the same in different words. I commonly call this stopping to be in love with a person.

Being in love is a very chemical thing, it's a drug dependency in a way. I don't think that being in love with some one is as much loving that person, as loving the feeling that person gives you, the fact that you get the aequiv. of a mild shot of heroine every time that person enters the room.

I take it you agree that people can be conditioned in that way right? Give some one a shot of heroine or some 'reward' every time another specific person enters the room, and that person will subconsciously associate the reward with that person and thus come to 'love' that person.

It happens yes, chemicals are more powerful than reason often. The 'machine' is more powerful than the 'ghost' if you like.

I would say that most people who stop being in love with someone were not getting their little shot of chemicals based on the person so much as the idea of who they believed this person to be. When they realize that the person is not who they believed them to be their chemical reward disappears.

I think that most people fall in love with ideas and perceptions rather than people.

 

[Kajahtava]

I would say that most people who stop being in love with someone were not getting their little shot of chemicals based on the person so much as the idea of who they believed this person to be. When they realize that the person is not who they believed them to be their chemical reward disappears.

Well, I think it goes in the reverse direction.

People just get that shot of chemicals for 'whatever reason', and from that start to delude themselves that person is amazing. After they get to know them, slowly but surely the truth becomes undeniable to them, and the chemicals stop.

The reason I believe this is because people always think people are great when they get their shot of chemicals, but some times they believe a person to be fantastic without the shot of chemicals, and get their chemicals from another, you know the hypothetical 'nice guy', the friend of the girl who's always their for her and shall always remain her friend as lovers come and go and of whom the girl has asked herself why she never seems to fall in love with him despite the fact that she considers him the one guy in her life that will never betray her.

I think that most people fall in love with ideas and perceptions rather than people.

I think it's the reverse, I think people get those ideas and delusions because they're in love because:

A: The delusions can exist without being madly in love, but hardly the reverse.
B: The admirations without them being delusions but actually grounded in reality can exist without being in love.

Seems a simple case to me, all people that are madly in love have those delusions of admirations, however not all people that have those delusions or even admirations grounded in reality are madly in love, therefore surely the arrow of implication must go from the former to the latter?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, I think it goes in the reverse direction.

People just get that shot of chemicals for 'whatever reason', and from that start to delude themselves that person is amazing. After they get to know them, slowly but surely the truth becomes undeniable to them, and the chemicals stop.

The reason I believe this is because people always think people are great when they get their shot of chemicals, but some times they believe a person to be fantastic without the shot of chemicals, and get their chemicals from another, you know the hypothetical 'nice guy', the friend of the girl who's always their for her and shall always remain her friend as lovers come and go and of whom the girl has asked herself why she never seems to fall in love with him despite the fact that she considers him the one guy in her life that will never betray her.

I think it's the reverse, I think people get those ideas and delusions because they're in love because:

A: The delusions can exist without being madly in love, but hardly the reverse.
B: The admirations without them being delusions but actually grounded in reality can exist without being in love.

Seems a simple case to me, all people that are madly in love have those delusions of admirations, however not all people that have those delusions or even admirations grounded in reality are madly in love, therefore surely the arrow of implication must go from the former to the latter?

I have friends both male and female. I enjoy spending time with them. I care a lot about them. I even find some of my female friends sexually attractive. Its not the same thing though.

I have been what I would consider "madly in love" all of once. I have met and dated other women in my life that made me feel good, that gave me my chemical reward, because I thought that maybe I would fall in love with them. I did not fall in love and that reward waned. The feelings for the one woman I fell "madly in love" with never waned. When things started to go bad in our relationship I did not love her any less. When she left me I did not love her any less. When she tormented me and said nasty things about me because I was going nutbaggy over losing her I still loved her as much as I often wished I could stop. When I saw she had fallen in love with someone else, that she was engaged, that she was married, none of it changed my feelings. Years later now after having little to no contact with her, because I could not deal with it, I can not honestly say that I am over her. And no other woman has made me feel that way before or since.
So I can not believe that I simply had a dopamine shot for no real reason and decided that I must like this person because of it.

 

[Kajahtava]

I have friends both male and female. I enjoy spending time with them. I care a lot about them. I even find some of my female friends sexually attractive. Its not the same thing though.

I have been what I would consider "madly in love" all of once. I have met and dated other women in my life that made me feel good, that gave me my chemical reward, because I thought that maybe I would fall in love with them. I did not fall in love and that reward waned. The feelings for the one woman I fell "madly in love" with never waned. When things started to go bad in our relationship I did not love her any less. When she left me I did not love her any less. When she tormented me and said nasty things about me because I was going nutbaggy over losing her I still loved her as much as I often wished I could stop. When I saw she had fallen in love with someone else, that she was engaged, that she was married, none of it changed my feelings. Years later now after having little to no contact with her, because I could not deal with it, I can not honestly say that I am over her. And no other woman has made me feel that way before or since.
So I can not believe that I simply had a dopamine shot for no real reason and decided that I must like this person because of it.

Hmm, that depends, do you have a pink filter towards her, do you still appreciate her, do you still love her, do you still like her?

Or is it just a need to be with her, her praesence?

 

[Huckleberry]

A: The delusions can exist without being madly in love, but hardly the reverse
B: The admirations without them being delusions but actually grounded in reality can exist without being in love.

Since there are people that maintain life-long romantic relationships I would say your assumption about romantic love always being delusional (A) is incorrect. Love without genuine admiration isn't genuine love. It's lust or infatuation.

Both love and admiration are physical and emotional processes. I agree that one can admire another without being in love with that person (B), but I disagree with the idea that one experience is necessarily more real than, or exclusive from, the other.

However if Y is in love with X, it could very well be a temporary hormone-based rouse that will quickly fade away.

The hormones that you are talking about are important in pair bonding. Hormones like oxytocin are released when stimulated by a romantic interest. It is also released when a mother gives birth to a child. It helps ensure the continuation of genes in a species. It is no guarantee of a lasting love. Then again, there is no guarantee of lasting admiration either. Both love and admiration can cause a person to not see things as they are. I don't see the distinction between the two as it applies to your hypothesis.

 

[Kajahtava]

Since there are people that maintain life-long romantic relationships I would say your assumption about romantic love always being delusional (A) is incorrect. Love without genuine admiration isn't genuine love. It's lust or infatuation.

I never claimed that, I said being in love always brings delusions.

Being in love and harbouring romantic feelings are two completely different things.

Also, assuming that I had said that, life long relationships would not invalidate it at all, delusions can continue to exist for quite a time.

[quite]Both love and admiration are physical and emotional processes. I agree that one can admire another without being in love with that person (B), but I disagree with the idea that one experience is necessarily more real than or exclusive from the other.[/quote]Well, the point is that people are often quotable to say 'I really wonder what I saw in that guy, he is, and was, a total arse.'

The hormones that you are talking about are important in pair bonding. Hormones like oxytocin are released when stimulated by a romantic interest. It is also released when a mother gives birth to a child. It helps ensure the continuation of genes in a species. It is no guarantee of a lasting love. Then again, there is no guarantee of lasting admiration either. Both love and admiration can cause a person to not see things as they are. I don't see the distinction between the two as it applies to your hypothesis.

I never made the distinction either. I made a distinction between the ghost, and the machine.

In love: chemical, not as much appreciating a person, but the feeling that person gives you.
Love: electrical, more of an appreciation to the relevant person.

It's also perfectly possible to love a person without a desire to be with that person, as soon as that desire is there, it already has some elements of chemical I think.

edit: strange double post with some extra content. But the thread title is a reference to the novel 1984 (I hope you know, else, get some culture into you), it's to say that not knowing if you're in love, and not caring, is strength.

 

[Huckleberry]

I never claimed that, I said being in love always brings delusions.

I disagree with this too. Being delusional brings delusions. I don't see anything intrinsically delusional about love.

Being in love and harbouring romantic feelings are two completely different things.

Sure, but when you say 'madly in love', I don't think it is wrong for me to assume that you mean a romantic love. That is typically what it means in English. What do you mean by 'madly in love'?

Also, assuming that I had said that, life long relationships would not invalidate it at all, delusions can continue to exist for quite a time.

Can you clarify this by giving some objective examples of delusions created by being 'madly in love' that cannot be created by admirations, particularly any conditions that always exist?

Well, the point is that people are often quotable to say 'I really wonder what I saw in that guy, he is, and was, a total arse.'

The same can be said for admiration. And if this is the point of your example then life-long relationships would seem to contradict it.

I never made the distinction either. I made a distinction between the ghost, and the machine.

In love: chemical, not as much appreciating a person, but the feeling that person gives you.
Love: electrical, more of an appreciation to the relevant person.

Isn't admiration also an appreciation to a relevant person? It appears that you made the distinction that admiration (love) reflects reality and 'in love' (love) does not because of the difference between chemical and electrical processes. How is one more real than the other, and why does one exclude the other?

edit: strange double post with some extra content. But the thread title is a reference to the novel 1984 (I hope you know, else, get some culture into you), it's to say that not knowing if you're in love, and not caring, is strength.

Sorry about the double post. I meant to edit the existing post, not double post. I have read the book and understand what you mean now. Thanks.

 

[Kajahtava]

I disagree with this too. Being delusional brings delusions. I don't see anything intrinsically delusional about love.

I never claimed love brought delusion, I said being in love brought them.

Sure, but when you say 'madly in love', I don't think it is wrong for me to assume that you mean a romantic love. That is typically what it means in English. What do you mean by 'madly in love'?

As I said, chemicals, butterflies, pink filters.

There's a big difference between having romantic feelings and being in love.

Can you clarify this by giving some objective examples of delusions created by being 'madly in love' that cannot be created by admirations, particularly any conditions that always exist?

A person who hates his ex.

Surely if one hates them now, and before greatly appreciated the very same person. Then either now, or before (likely) that person was deluded? Especially if they often say that that person did not become an arse, but always was and they just found out too late.

The same can be said for admiration. And if this is the point of your example then life-long relationships would seem to contradict it.

Then those admirations were deluded too nay?

I never claimed admiration can't bring delusion. The other party said that delusion caused a person to fall in love, I claim that it's the reverse, falling in love causes the delusion. Every person that falls in love has delusions (pink filters), but not every person that has delusions falls in love (some indeed only admire), seems trivial to me that the implication goes the other way around.

Isn't admiration also an appreciation to a relevant person? It appears that you made the distinction that admiration (love) reflects reality and 'in love' (love) does not because of the difference between chemical and electrical processes. How is one more real than the other, and why does one exclude the other?

I said that people that are in love often claim the objects of their desire to have several properties that can't be objectively justified.

However in the case of love, the claims are often of a less fantastic nature, and also quite justifiable and more objective, also able to see the bad sides of a person.

Sorry about the double post. I meant to edit the existing post, not double post. I have read the book and understand what you mean now. Thanks.

I figured yes.

 

[Huckleberry]

I never claimed love brought delusion, I said being in love brought them.

How does one become in love without love? This makes me think you are referring specifically to romantic love, in contrast to platonic love. Still, without love it would just be infatuation, which is a foolish or unreasoning passion.

As I said, chemicals, butterflies, pink filters.
There's a big difference between having romantic feelings and being in love.

I wasn't referring to romantic feelings. I meant romantic love. It is a term that refers to the kind of love that creates those chemicals, butterflies and pink filters. I'm not really sure what you mean by pink filters, but I'm assuming you mean something akin to the English metaphor "looking at the world through rose-colored glasses."

A person who hates his ex.
Surely if one hates them now, and before greatly appreciated the very same person. Then either now, or before (likely) that person was deluded? Especially if they often say that that person did not become an arse, but always was and they just found out too late.

A person can also come to hate someone they once admired. Also, because someone's feelings for an individual change does not preclude rational reasons as the cause. For example, a woman is married to a man for 10 years. Then she discovers that he has been having sex with her best friend all that time. She didn't know it before, but it has been true for their entire relationship.

Then those admirations were deluded too nay?

I never claimed admiration can't bring delusion. The other party said that delusion caused a person to fall in love, I claim that it's the reverse, falling in love causes the delusion. Every person that falls in love has delusions (pink filters), but not every person that has delusions falls in love (some indeed only admire), seems trivial to me that the implication goes the other way around.

I don't remember you ever claiming that admiration can't bring delusion, but you did present it as a real and genuine way for people to appreciate each other in contrast to being in love, which you claim always brings delusions. I'm asserting that both admiration and being in love can bring delusions, but admiration and being in love do not always bring delusions. So far it would seem that you agree with the first part of the previous sentence.

I said that people that are in love often claim the objects of their desire to have several properties that can't be objectively justified.

However in the case of love, the claims are often of a less fantastic nature, and also quite justifiable and more objective, also able to see the bad sides of a person.

Do people that are in love often claim unjustifiable properties to the object of their affection, or do they always do so?

 

[Kajahtava]

How does one become in love without love?

Happens all the time, it's a common thing, they're even people in love who hate each other, that's called a bad marriage.

This makes me think you are referring specifically to romantic love, in contrast to platonic love.

Nope, I'm referring to chemical versus electric, again.

Still, without love it would just be infatuation, which is a foolish or unreasoning passion.

In love and love are then again two different things that might go hand in hand and might not.

Infatuation is hardly a chemical addiction, no one ever vomited because an infatuation turned out to be taken, it's just 'Oh **** damn.', maybe a little bit of pain, but in two days you forgot.

When relationships break, and people are in love, they have a tendency to feel like vomiting, crying, shivering, that's called withdrawal symptoms.

I wasn't referring to romantic feelings. I meant romantic love. It is a term that refers to the kind of love that creates those chemicals, butterflies and pink filters. I'm not really sure what you mean by pink filters, but I'm assuming you mean something akin to the English metaphor "looking at the world through rose-colored glasses."

Well, except then looking at the other party through them, but yes.

A person can also come to hate someone they once admired. Also, because someone's feelings for an individual change does not preclude rational reasons as the cause. For example, a woman is married to a man for 10 years. Then she discovers that he has been having sex with her best friend all that time. She didn't know it before, but it has been true for their entire relationship.

Then they were once deluded, or now, right? She was deluded to think her husband did not cheat, simple as that.

You're bloody naïve to trust a partner by the way, that's called a rose coloured glass all right. I'm fully convinced that in over 95% of the times that people cheat, the other party simply doesn't find out.

I don't remember you ever claiming that admiration can't bring delusion, but you did present it as a real and genuine way for people to appreciate each other in contrast to being in love, which you claim always brings delusions.

I never did that, I'm just going against the other person who says that being in love is caused by a delusion. I say that it's the other way around, that's all.

I think admiration is unhealthy in a relationship too; best just stay aequals.

I'm asserting that both admiration and being in love can bring delusions, but admiration and being in love do not always bring delusions. So far it would seem that you agree with the first part of the previous sentence.

When I speak of in love, I speak of the chemical addiction, surely delusions are implied by that?

Do people that are in love often claim unjustifiable properties to the object of their affection, or do they always do so?

They always do. The people that are more reasonable aren't in love namely, it's not that chemical there, they simply love the other party.

 

[Huckleberry]

Happens all the time, it's a common thing, they're even people in love who hate each other, that's called a bad marriage.
Nope, I'm referring to chemical versus electric, again.

In love and love are then again two different things that might go hand in hand and might not.

What makes a chemical response less real than an electrical one? This appears to be an arbitrary difference to me, assuming the conditions you apply to them are even true. You use this distinction to separate the terms love and in love. Your use of the word 'love' seems to be synonymous with your original use of the word admiration. Your use of the words 'in love' seems to be synonymous with emotions caused by chemical reactions, which is synonymous with delusions. You are applying all of these descriptions to a single experience where the emotions from chemicals are delusions.

Infatuation is hardly a chemical addiction, no one ever vomited because an infatuation turned out to be taken, it's just 'Oh **** damn.', maybe a little bit of pain, but in two days you forgot.

When relationships break, and people are in love, they have a tendency to feel like vomiting, crying, shivering, that's called withdrawal symptoms.

Maybe this is what the experience is like for you. For others, infatuation can have a very powerful reaction. Some people will risk their lives or kill each other for it. Infatuation is a foolish or unreasoning passion. That is a simple definition, but it matches your meaning of the words 'in love'. Your subjective experience of it is not more or less true than someone elses.

Then they were once deluded, or now, right? She was deluded to think her husband did not cheat, simple as that.

Sure, they were deluded in the sense that another person deceived them. That has nothing to do with the type of self-delusion you are attributing to 'in love' chemicals.

I never did that, I'm just going against the other person who says that being in love is caused by a delusion. I say that it's the other way around, that's all.

I think admiration is unhealthy in a relationship too; best just stay aequals.

In your Opening Post you did say that people can have a genuine appreciation for each other and that being 'in love' is not advantageous to an enduring appreciation. I think the point I was tying to make is that feelings can change for rational reasons. Being 'in love' does not always create self-delusion. It's just a bonding process that is part of the process of love. I think that was my point, but honestly I'm starting to lose interest.

When I speak of in love, I speak of the chemical addiction, surely delusions are implied by that?
They always do. The people that are more reasonable aren't in love namely, it's not that chemical there, they simply love the other party.

This is all tangled up. You assume that 'in love' chemicals create delusion, but your definition of delusion in this context is the experience of 'in love' chemicals. You've created a tautology to explain something you don't understand. I only say you don't understand because you assume your subjective experience of 'in love' is objective because you define it as chemicals. The chemicals may be the same, but people's experience's are different.

Reasonable people fall in love just as often as anyone else. There are several reasonable people on this site that are in love and have long-lasting relationships with their partner. There is nothing discouraging 'in love' from becoming real, lasting love. The chemicals that create an experience in one person don't directly cause their partner to be a better or worse match for them. Being 'in love' does not make a long-lasting relationship less likely. It can encourage a person to stay with a person that is bad for them, but it doesn't make that person bad for them. Thinking it is naive to trust anyone at all does.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The other party said that delusion caused a person to fall in love, I claim that it's the reverse, falling in love causes the delusion.

I think that you are perhaps misunderstanding me. We have a series of memories of our experiences and when we enter into a new situation or meet a new person we often base our initial reactions on predictions based on these previous experiences. Most of us do this with just about every person we meet. Everyone of us has likely experienced that moment when our new friend tells us something about themselves and it takes us by surprise. We have no reason really to be surprised except that we had some preconceived notion of who this person is and this new piece of information does not fit.
What I am saying is that these people who "fall out of love" most often likely "fell in love" with a preconceived idea of who this person they are with is. Your delusion causing chemicals would likely reinforce the preconception. It feels good to believe that this person is who I think they are and so I will continue believing it despite evidence to the contrary. Rather than delusion this seems more like a cognitive dissonance, something which humans tend to be guilty of with great frequency.
I am saying that people "fall out of love" because the evidence against their perceptions eventually outweigh their ability to gain pleasure from maintaining them.

Hmm, that depends, do you have a pink filter towards her, do you still appreciate her, do you still love her, do you still like her?

Or is it just a need to be with her, her praesence?

I did not have rosy glasses with her. She was the one with rosy glasses. She was guilty of the cognitive dissonance I describe above, though she may deny it. She wanted to believe that I was this person in her mind and it became increasingly evident to me that this was the case as she explained to me about exs and what she wants in a husband. When she consistently complained of not knowing anything about me despite hours upon hours we spent doing nothing but talking. The way that she became distressed at every moment that I said or did anything that was unexpected to her.
I got to know her very well and fell in love. She thought she already knew me and hardly learned anything about me so that near the end of our relationship she wondered more and more about who this person was that she was dating.

I do not want to be around her or to speak to her because it hurts. I still love her and care about her though. I can not blame her for not being in love with me. I can not blame her for things she said and did because she was confused and did not know how to deal with it, especially since I did and said stupid things myself out of confusion and an inability to handle the situation.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Love has nothing to do with ignorance. Love is LOVE.

 

[Kajahtava]

What makes a chemical response less real than an electrical one? This appears to be an arbitrary difference to me, assuming the conditions you apply to them are even true.

Chemical response is addictive.

Note that I use 'electric' where some people would use 'ghost' and chemical where some people use 'machine'. I don't believe in the ghost in the machine so I use chemical versus electric. As in, the mind versus just a drug.

You use this distinction to separate the terms love and in love. Your use of the word 'love' seems to be synonymous with your original use of the word admiration.

Admiration and love can be pretty distinct. One loves a person's personality, and one admires his qualities, I think. I admire Perelmann, I can't say that I love him, I never met him. I wouldn't say it hit me that much if I heard he died.

Your use of the words 'in love' seems to be synonymous with emotions caused by chemical reactions, which is synonymous with delusions.

Yes, that's the usual definition of it isn't it?

At the beginning of a relationship you are in love, when that fades, some times you grow to hate each other, some times you don't and then you start to love each other and stay together, from some point on you start to notice each other's bad sides, but don't care, nobody's perfect, and you still love each other.

You are applying all of these descriptions to a single experience where the emotions from chemicals are delusions. Maybe this is what the experience is like for you.

I've never been in love, do I appear at you that deluded?

For others, infatuation can have a very powerful reaction. Some people will risk their lives or kill each other for it. Infatuation is a foolish or unreasoning passion.

Okay, let's change our definitions then, let's say that:

in love <-> infatuation
romantic love <-> what you call in love
platonic love <-> friendship

And we're set, I believe.

That is a simple definition, but it matches your meaning of the words 'in love'. Your subjective experience of it is not more or less true than someone elses.

What makes you think I experience this a lot? I've only once in my life had to admit that I misinterpreted some one, and I knew it was happening, I just didn't want to believe it, a weakness, surely. We're still good, very good friends though.

Sure, they were deluded in the sense that another person deceived them. That has nothing to do with the type of self-delusion you are attributing to 'in love' chemicals. In your Opening Post you did say that people can have a genuine appreciation for each other and that being 'in love' is not advantageous to an enduring appreciation. I think the point I was tying to make is that feelings can change for rational reasons. Being 'in love' does not always create self-delusion. It's just a bonding process that is part of the process of love.

Well, as we now consider in love (my words) the same as infatuation (your words). You've already admitted that infatuation causes delusions, so I'm fine with that.

I think we just aren't that clear on words. Also, what I call infatuation is a lot lighter I guess. For me it's more like 'Wow, she's ****ing hot', and if you never meet her again, that's not going to make you cry.

I think that was my point, but honestly I'm starting to lose interest. This is all tangled up. You assume that 'in love' chemicals create delusion, but your definition of delusion in this context is the experience of 'in love' chemicals. You've created a tautology to explain something you don't understand. I only say you don't understand because you assume your subjective experience of 'in love' is objective because you define it as chemicals. The chemicals may be the same, but people's experience's are different.

Well, my 'in love', is your 'infatuation'.

My point in this debate was mainly that if your girlfriend is not in love / infatuated with you but merely 'loves' you, you have an extra guarantee to its longlivity.

Reasonable people fall in love just as often as anyone else. There are several reasonable people on this site that are in love and have long-lasting relationships with their partner.

It depends on your definition of reasonable and falling in love. But in mine, I would beg to differ.

Note that I met about three to four people that are reasonable in my life, and I am not one of them, for me, being reasonable requires at least:
- complete objectivity
- willingness to drop one's entire creed at the sign of a single counter example
- having a complete line between what one thinks is true, and what one wants to be true.

As you can see above, I at least once blurred the last line.

There is nothing discouraging 'in love' from becoming real, lasting love.

No, but if it already is, more power to you yes?

If a girl wants to date you, wants to feel intimate with you, considers you special, but is not 'in love' with you, good chance she loves you on a very deep and lasting level.

The chemicals that create an experience in one person don't directly cause their partner to be a better or worse match for them. Being 'in love' does not make a long-lasting relationship less likely. It can encourage a person to stay with a person that is bad for them, but it doesn't make that person bad for them.

My scenario in the opening post more or less implied that the lasting love was already there.

Thinking it is naive to trust anyone at all does.

Now I know your opinion of reasonable is awkward by my standards. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you trust other people, you're far less likely to find out what they do behind your back because you don't pay attention and do a little research once in a while. Remember, you only have a lower bound, people have fooled behind your back far more most likely than you've find out. The quaestion's not if you're too paranoid, but if you aren't quite paranoid enough.

Look on some statistics of self-admission of cheating, about 50% of married people in all polls admit to having cheat at least once, the number is of course far higher. If you cheat, it's not that hard to just don't get caught. 'Hey honey, I'm going out fishing', bang another chick, the hell she's not going to find out, make sure there aren't any hairs in your clothes, and if they are she's probably not even going to notice it.

Trusting another person also gives them the climate for cheating, knowing they won't get caught.

A smart man shoot's a man in the front, so he can see in the reflexion of his eyes if another man isn't standing behind him to shoot him in the back.

http://thisdomainisirrelevant.net/742.png

Always stay one step ahead of your enemies, and two steps ahead of your friends my dear, for the latter are far more powerful in hurting you.

 

[Huckleberry]

Chemical response is addictive.

Note that I use 'electric' where some people would use 'ghost' and chemical where some people use 'machine'. I don't believe in the ghost in the machine so I use chemical versus electric. As in, the mind versus just a drug.

Ok, so the question becomes how is an addictive response less real than a non-addictive response? The stimuli may be real or not, but the response is in itself a real experience. One can be 'in love' and not be oblivious to the nature of their partner. Emotion and reason can work together. One must not always be subject to the other.

Yes, that's the usual definition of it isn't it?

No, not at all! You're defining a complex emotion by isolating physical causes. Love had a definition long before scientific inquiry into its physical nature. That definition attempts to define the experience of love. Defining 'in love' as a chemical process dismisses the experience. You make a distinction between love and 'in love' based on the isolated causes, disregarding the experience as a whole. 'In love' is an important part of a romantic relationship that may become lasting love.

At the beginning of a relationship you are in love, when that fades, some times you grow to hate each other, some times you don't and then you start to love each other and stay together, from some point on you start to notice each other's bad sides, but don't care, nobody's perfect, and you still love each other.

I don't think 'in love' necessarily fades. It becomes less prevalent perhaps, but no less powerful. But generally I agree with what you've written here. What surprised me is that you think a lasting love is better served without the chemical bonding process of 'in love'. Now that I understand you universally perceive 'in love' as ignorance and trust as naivety I can understand why you believe that. Maybe this is why your group of friends looked at you dumbstruck when you gave them your hypothesis.

I've never been in love, do I appear at you that deluded?

I don't think you are delusional, but I do think you are ignorant of the experience you are making claims of. You haven't yet experienced what it is you've convinced yourself is true, and concluded that a bonding process is disadvantageous for pair bonding because it is addictive, hence delusional, I suppose because you believe it always creates a false representation of one's partner. You make no distinction between obsessive infatuation and romantic love because you don't understand them. They exist only as chemicals to you. I suspect that your belief that 'in love' always creates a false representation actually stems from your negative view of trust. So far, the belief that trust is always false is the only way I could follow your hypothesis.

Okay, let's change our definitions then, let's say that:

in love <-> infatuation
romantic love <-> what you call in love
platonic love <-> friendship

And we're set, I believe.

This doesn't work at all. You can see that 'in love' is represented twice, both for infatuation and romantic love. The second example consists of two terms that I used and none that you used. This leads me to believe that you are conflating infatuation with romantic love in all cases.

If I saw someone's grandparents kissing in public I wouldn't assume that their display of affection is an unhealthy infatuation. It might gross some people out, but that's their problem. I might be more likely to assume that a younger couple in the same circumstance don't really know who their partner is yet, but that doesn't make it necessarily true, nor does it make it delusional infatuation even if it is true.

Well, as we now consider in love (my words) the same as infatuation (your words). You've already admitted that infatuation causes delusions, so I'm fine with that.

The term 'in love' is still in contention as to whther it means infatuation or romantic love. I believe you have no discernment between the two terms. Also, I said "Being 'in love' does not always create self-delusion." I said "Infatuation is a foolish or unreasoning passion." It's suspect of you to solidify my use of infatuation and 'in love' into a context that suits your opinion when, apparently, I'm still not sure what you mean by 'in love'.

My point in this debate was mainly that if your girlfriend is not in love / infatuated with you but merely 'loves' you, you have an extra guarantee to its longlivity.

If one is obsessively infatuated then that is a barrier both to knowing a partner and being known by them. Romantic love can look and feel very similar, but it isn't a selfish need, and it isn't always devoid of reason. I would agree with you that if 'in love' is defined as infatuation then the emotional bond it creates is delusional and far more likely to be unhealthy to a relationship. If 'in love' is romantic love then what are probably those same chemicals as infatuation aid in creating an emotional bond that gives extra insurance to its longevity. Without that emotional bond, with its chemical components, there is no additional benefit to longevity. It still could last, but it would be a passionless relationship. Passion is no guarantee of lasting success in a relationship, but it does work as a reciprocative incentive.

No, but if it already is, more power to you yes?

If a girl wants to date you, wants to feel intimate with you, considers you special, but is not 'in love' with you, good chance she loves you on a very deep and lasting level.

I would be exquisitely unhappy in a passionless relationship. "Pour some sugar on me, baby." I don't want physical intimacy without emotional bonding. I usually refer to that as casual sex. The last thing I want to hear from a woman I'm interested in is that I'm special. That's code for "I don't feel the same way about you, but I value your friendship."

My scenario in the opening post more or less implied that the lasting love was already there.

The scenario described in the original post seemed distant and unattached. I didn't perceive the implication of lasting love at all in the structure of the argument. It seemed to just appear in the conclusion for no apparent reason. That's why we are having this discussion.

 

[Kajahtava]

Ok, so the question becomes how is an addictive response less real than a non-addictive response? The stimuli may be real or not, but the response is in itself a real experience. One can be 'in love' and not be oblivious to the nature of their partner. Emotion and reason can work together. One must not always be subject to the other.

I can't remember saying any thing is more real than any other.

I said that when the other party isn't in love/infatuated, the chances of the affection being longlasting are higher.

No, not at all! You're defining a complex emotion by isolating physical causes. Love had a definition long before scientific inquiry into its physical nature. That definition attempts to define the experience of love. Defining 'in love' as a chemical process dismisses the experience. You make a distinction between love and 'in love' based on the isolated causes, disregarding the experience as a whole. 'In love' is an important part of a romantic relationship that may become lasting love.

If you say so, that hardly changes from my point about maximizing longlivity though.

I don't think 'in love' necessarily fades. It becomes less prevalent perhaps, but no less powerful. But generally I agree with what you've written here. What surprised me is that you think a lasting love is better served without the chemical bonding process of 'in love'. Now that I understand you universally perceive 'in love' as ignorance and trust as naivety I can understand why you believe that. Maybe this is why your group of friends looked at you dumbstruck when you gave them your hypothesis.

Hmm, they were just people in my year really.

I don't think you are delusional, but I do think you are ignorant of the experience you are making claims of. You haven't yet experienced what it is you've convinced yourself is true, and concluded that a bonding process is disadvantageous for pair bonding because it is addictive, hence delusional, I suppose because you believe it always creates a false representation of one's partner. You make no distinction between obsessive infatuation and romantic love because you don't understand them. They exist only as chemicals to you. I suspect that your belief that 'in love' always creates a false representation actually stems from your negative view of trust. So far, the belief that trust is always false is the only way I could follow your hypothesis.

I would say there are very view people worth trusting out there. The only people that are perhaps are people that have an obsessive compulsion to tell the truth.

Let us for sake of argument assume that I am right and it is a naïve delusion, having experienced it then only makes one less objective to it, right? Let's say I am wrong and it is not a naïve delusion, then not having experienced it hardly makes one less objective to that fact, only to the supposed good feeling it gives.

But then again, the same can be said to justify about any drug.

http://www.wor710.com/2010/02/08/new-blog-stories/The-Chemistry-of-Love/6311766

I believe I also read some literature that demonstrated that the very same areae of the brain become lit when a junky sees a picture of heroine as when we see a picture of the person we're in love with. I don't really think there is very much more to it, you basically get a shot of heroine every time a person enters the room, Pavlov had to say about that that it's quite easy then to then start to 'love' that person, just like if I gave you an electroshock every time a random person x enters the room. It would be long before that person first annoyed you, and finally you wanted to see him dead.

This doesn't work at all. You can see that 'in love' is represented twice, both for infatuation and romantic love. The second example consists of two terms that I used and none that you used. This leads me to believe that you are conflating infatuation with romantic love in all cases.

Hmm, I mean that the first at each time is the terms that I use, and the second the terms that you use.

If I saw someone's grandparents kissing in public I wouldn't assume that their display of affection is an unhealthy infatuation. It might gross some people out, but that's their problem. I might be more likely to assume that a younger couple in the same circumstance don't really know who their partner is yet, but that doesn't make it necessarily true, nor does it make it delusional infatuation even if it is true.

I'd call that love.

I doubt most grandparents are still in love with each other, still pink and fluffy, still feel butterflies (chemical feeling, it's in your body, not your mind)

The term 'in love' is still in contention as to whther it means infatuation or romantic love. I believe you have no discernment between the two terms. Also, I said "Being 'in love' does not always create self-delusion." I said "Infatuation is a foolish or unreasoning passion." It's suspect of you to solidify my use of infatuation and 'in love' into a context that suits your opinion when, apparently, I'm still not sure what you mean by 'in love'.

Well then, I rephrase to a simpler position 'feeling butterflies', I'm content with that as it's a reaction in corpore, not in mente.

If one is obsessively infatuated then that is a barrier both to knowing a partner and being known by them. Romantic love can look and feel very similar, but it isn't a selfish need, and it isn't always devoid of reason. I would agree with you that if 'in love' is defined as infatuation then the emotional bond it creates is delusional and far more likely to be unhealthy to a relationship. If 'in love' is romantic love then what are probably those same chemicals as infatuation aid in creating an emotional bond that gives extra insurance to its longevity. Without that emotional bond, with its chemical components, there is no additional benefit to longevity. It still could last, but it would be a passionless relationship. Passion is no guarantee of lasting success in a relationship, but it does work as a reciprocative incentive.

Well, there is the difference of butterflies.

I'd find it a strange thing as some chemical would not be absent from such a difference in bodily reaction.

I would be exquisitely unhappy in a passionless relationship. "Pour some sugar on me, baby." I don't want physical intimacy without emotional bonding. I usually refer to that as casual sex. The last thing I want to hear from a woman I'm interested in is that I'm special. That's code for "I don't feel the same way about you, but I value your friendship."

I wouldn't exactly call being in love/infatuation an emotion as much as a drift.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/pubs/teaching/Teaching2/largegifs/slide15.gif

As you can see, it's completely devoid of the frontal lobe and neocortex, very little in the cerebral cortex, and mostly the thalamus and also the brain stem to some degree.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/pubs/teaching/Teaching2/largegifs/slide15.gif

Which is about drugs by the way but:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/love7.htm

And as we all know, the difference between endorphin and heroin is basically that heroin is easier to make in a lab.

The scenario described in the original post seemed distant and unattached. I didn't perceive the implication of lasting love at all in the structure of the argument. It seemed to just appear in the conclusion for no apparent reason. That's why we are having this discussion.

Ahh, I see.

Well, I'd rather have a partner willing to spend every day of the week with me because of platonic feelings than some drug to be honest, in effect, it makes me feel more special, people have girlfriends all the time, who has a person in his life that loves him so much without all that chemistry? Two, two weeks back or so, I was helping some one with her homework over MSN, while all of the sudden the phone rang so I told her that, and apparently it was two hours later when I got back, she asked me who it was, I said 'my ex', she said 'Ahh, problems?', I said 'No, just ehh, conversation, she calls me about every day.', then she was still under the impression that she was stalking me. When it was finally made clear that it ended two years back and I still visit her a lot she sort of didn't understand how I could talk about nothing and anything with some one for two hours on the phone, and I then realized this:

- Most people's friends, they can't just visit them, they need to 'do some-thing', go to a game, go to the cinema, dinner, they have to have a thing to do. It never happens that they just go see each other really.

Don't you think that she calls me every day and we can talk for two hours straight doesn't make it a lot more special than were she to have romantic feelings for me? The last happens a lot, you know.

 

[Huckleberry]

Don't you think that she calls me every day and we can talk for two hours straight doesn't make it a lot more special than were she to have romantic feelings for me? The last happens a lot, you know.

'In love' and love are not exclusive. You observe people who are 'in love' and assume that they are delusional and do not really love each other. This is an assumption you are making that is incorrect because you don't know what you are talking about. Love and 'in love' are a part of the same process in a romantic relationship just as the mind and the body are a part of the same organism. You've decided that what the body does is unhealthy for the mind while dismissing that the mind also effects the body. The poetry does not compute.

 

[Kajahtava]

'In love' and love are not exclusive. You observe people who are 'in love' and assume that they are delusional and do not really love each other. This is an assumption you are making that is incorrect because you don't know what you are talking about.

I think I said already that in love and love could go hand in hand, and could not back up there.

This is by the way what I think psychiatry does wrong, invent a new category instead of being open to the fact that it's simply two categories at the same time.

Love and 'in love' are a part of the same process in a romantic relationship just as the mind and the body are a part of the same organism. You've decided that what the body does is unhealthy for the mind while dismissing that the mind also effects the body. The poetry does not compute.

I can't ever remember naming 'unhealthy', all I said was that if a girl wants to spend time with you, kiss you, hug you and all that without feeling any chemical love for you. Then you've more of a guarantee that the affection's to there stay.

 

[Galteeth]

You are treating love as a discrete, quanitifiable thing. The subjective experience of love for one person may be very different for another person. Even with some quantifiable definition, it would be nearly impossible to make universal generalizations.

In a matter like love, casual obervation and some use of your innate heuristics mightbe more useful then a formal treatment.