Is Love Truly Real? Perspectives from Science and Society

[Moonbear]

Well, even assuming you can identify the subjective emotion with brain activity (I don't believe that, but let's not get into it here), I don't see how that makes love 'not real.' Maybe you're trying to say it's not as it seems, but that's a completely different claim. In any case, even if natural selection has selected the emotion of love to promote breeding, that doesn't demean the emotion itself.

To add to that, if one is arguing it's entirely a biological process to promote breeding, isn't that even better support that it is real?

Though, I'd argue lust is the emotion involved in promoting breeding. Love is possibly more akin to affiliative pair-bonding behavior that promotes paternal care of offspring (if you want to consider it on biological terms only).

 

[Astronuc]

Two other threads on the topic of Love.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47520&page=1

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60756


Love certainly has been used euphemistically for lust and desire, which are not love, but expression of selfishness.

How about a simple definition of love - a strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties. (I would emphasize 'affection' in contrast to 'attraction'.)

I love my parents, my wife, my children, my siblings and their families, my friends, my cats and dog, and others who are not really as close as friends. All those forms of love are however very different. All involve some degree of affection, but beyond that there is also a sense of commitment.

And I personally take Love a step further. Love is not just affection, but love involves and abiding care, concern, consideration and respect for the other(s) involved in the relationship(s), and to some degree, reciprocity and mutuality.

The latter term is particularly important in terms of equal parties in a relationship, e.g. wife and husband. A wife and husband should be mutual companions and soulmates, in a reciprocal and supportive relationship. Marriage is an interdepedent relationship, and not one of dependence. Both husband and wife can have individual as well as mutual interests and balance can be achieved.

Marriage is particularly important in the context of having children - with both parents sharing responsibility for raising and nuturing the children. And from this, children learn to be caring, considerate, thoughtful, respectful, i.e. loving persons.

Finally, LOVE is hard work, but it is also, a most profound, spiritual and rewarding experience.

 

[Carly]

Finally, LOVE is hard work, but it is also, a most profound, spiritual and rewarding experience.

Too true.

And to those who don't think love exists then what would you call the emotion you feel for the person you care about most?

 

[franznietzsche]

Too true.

And to those who don't think love exists then what would you call the emotion you feel for the person you care about most?

An illusion, and a lie.

I'm tired of arguing against people who refuse to stick to a single definition of love in arguement. I didn' say love didn't exist, i said it was nothing more than a chemical state in the brain nothing important or particularly special. No more special than my desire to eat, or th input my brain receives from my eyes.

 

[Carly]

To quote Henry now,
"Unless you're a nihilist, you're affected by these chemical emotions every day in your life and therefore make the most of them and enjoy the ride as all brain activity is chemical or electronic in the end. Sometimes it's best to keep yourself inside the box or you'll end up like philip larkin."

 

[Astronuc]

FN, for that matter, every thought and feeling is the result of a chemical reaction in the brain. One could argue, all life is nothing more than a collection of chemical reactions. Limiting existence to that seems rather cynical (ah - another chemical state in the brain).

Life and Love are much more.

If you or anyone needs some, I've got extra.

 

[franznietzsche]

Limiting existence to that seems rather cynical (ah - another chemical state in the brain).

Find someone more cynical than me, you'd be hard pressed.

Life and Love are much more.

And that is where we disagree.

 

[Joel]

How about neurochemist? Scientists live and love their work and some neurochemists work with brain chemistry. So, no need to disagree, as neurochemists you can both have your way. My logic is undeniable.

I'll get my jacket...

 

[Astronuc]

OK Franz - look at this - http://boswell.web.aplus.net/mordor-vi.gif (animated)

 

[Qyamat]

You bet it is.And it is becoming the national game of the world.

 

[franznietzsche]

OK Franz - look at this - http://boswell.web.aplus.net/mordor-vi.gif (animated)

I had already seen that. The relevance?

 

[hypnagogue]

I didn' say love didn't exist, i said it was nothing more than a chemical state in the brain nothing important or particularly special. No more special than my desire to eat, or th input my brain receives from my eyes.

If that's true, then there's nothing particularly special about any subjective experience above and beyond any others. So why do you even bother spending your time on PF? Whatever enjoyment you might get out of it is an illusion, and a lie.

edit: whoops, didn't mean to imply you should stop coming here, so don't take it that way. All I'm trying to say is that different experiences are relatively more or less valuable to the individual, based on how they make the individual feel. Claiming that they are 'nothing more' than chemical reactions does nothing to change that observation.

 

[Carly]

If that's true, then there's nothing particularly special about any subjective experience above and beyond any others.

Exactly what I was trying to say Am glad there are people who aren't negative about love

 

[franznietzsche]

If that's true, then there's nothing particularly special about any subjective experience above and beyond any others. So why do you even bother spending your time on PF? Whatever enjoyment you might get out of it is an illusion, and a lie.

edit: whoops, didn't mean to imply you should stop coming here, so don't take it that way. All I'm trying to say is that different experiences are relatively more or less valuable to the individual, based on how they make the individual feel. Claiming that they are 'nothing more' than chemical reactions does nothing to change that observation.

Yeah, that enjoyment is an illusion, this negates what i say how?

I have no problem with these conclusions, do you?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

franznietzsche, how do you distinguish love from lust?

 

[franznietzsche]

franznietzsche, how do you distinguish love from lust?

My point is that there really is no distinction.

 

[the number 42]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, so sorry for any duplication. But for those of you in any doubt that love is real, check this out:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/10heart.htm

 

[hypnagogue]

Yeah, that enjoyment is an illusion, this negates what i say how?

I have no problem with these conclusions, do you?

Perhaps I was reading too much into what you were saying, but your insistence that love is an illusion seems to indicate that you think it's not worth experiencing. If that's not what you meant, then I'm puzzled as to why you keep insisting on this point. It's sort of like wandering into a physics discussion and saying, "When Einstein formulated general relatvitiy, all that was happening was certain chemical reactions were causing him to stain pieces of paper with ink in a systematic way." That might be true, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to discussing Einstein or general relativity.

My point is that there really is no distinction [between love and lust].

There certainly is a distinction. Love and lust feel qualitatively different to the experiencer, and they typically are associated with drastically different behaviors. I haven't seen any evidence for this, but they very likely show up as distinct blobs of color in an fMRI scan of the brain as well. There is overlap in some cases, certainly, but that doesn't disqualify any distinctions whatsoever. I don't mean to be obnoxious or pejorative in any way when I say this, but perhaps you can't find any relevant distinction between the two because you haven't personally experienced both emotions fully.

 

[franznietzsche]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, so sorry for any duplication. But for those of you in any doubt that love is real, check this out:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/10heart.htm

And this is any different from going into shock from severe pain, another chemical condition in the brain?

Other triggers, said one report, 'included a surprise party, car accident, armed robbery, fierce argument, court appearance and fear of public speaking.'

Yup, definitely caused by "love".

Stress is stress, love is nothing special.

 

[Moonbear]

Hmm...I may need to get myself this book.
Affective Neuroscience** - The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions*by Jaak Panksepp. http://www.oup.com/ca/isbn/0-19-517805-X

From the description:

Some investigators have argued that emotions, especially animal emotions, are illusory concepts outside the realm of scientific inquiry. However, with advances in neurobiology and neuroscience, researchers are demonstrating that this position is wrong as they move closer to a lasting understanding of the biology and psychology of emotion. In Affective Neuroscience, Jaak Panksepp provides the most up-to-date information about the brain-operating systems that organize the fundamental emotional tendencies of all mammals.

 

[Carly]

.

Stress is stress, love is nothing special.

Love is special though. At least, it was special to me when I was experiancing it, and I'm sure to everyone else who's ever been in love and been loved in return.

 

[loseyourname]

There certainly is a distinction. Love and lust feel qualitatively different to the experiencer, and they typically are associated with drastically different behaviors. I haven't seen any evidence for this, but they very likely show up as distinct blobs of color in an fMRI scan of the brain as well.

I don't know about scans (or even if there is electrical activity associated with differential emotions in general) but there are definitely different neuropeptides associated with each feeling, as well as different hormonal responses in other parts of the body.

Edit: I should mention that there are also different chemicals associated with the feeling of "being in love" and with lasting monogamous committment. So if we're going to categorize emotions based on chemical associations, we should really distinguish between three categories, not two.

 

[franznietzsche]

Love is special though. At least, it was special to me when I was experiancing it, and I'm sure to everyone else who's ever been in love and been loved in return.

Except those who have been loved too many times.

That which is common, is also cheap.

 

[Integral]

My point is that there really is no distinction.

There is your problem.

Re read Astronuc's post. He is talking about love, Not lust. There is a huge difference. Relationships which mistake lust for love cannot last, because lust does not last.

Astronuc has given a pretty good definition of love, perhaps you need to study it. You may well realize that what you have experienced so far is lust and not love.

 

[franznietzsche]

You may well realize that what you have experienced so far is lust and not love.

Its not a question of what i experience. Using anecdotal evidence is horribly unscientific, i would think by now i should have established that that is the sort of thing i would not do, use my own anecdotal experience as evidence.

Its about what i can objectively observe around me.

 

[franznietzsche]

Perhaps I was reading too much into what you were saying, but your insistence that love is an illusion seems to indicate that you think it's not worth experiencing.

Close enough. More like it doesn't matter if you experience it, but whatever.

There certainly is a distinction. Love and lust feel qualitatively different to the experiencer, and they typically are associated with drastically different behaviors. I haven't seen any evidence for this, but they very likely show up as distinct blobs of color in an fMRI scan of the brain as well. There is overlap in some cases, certainly, but that doesn't disqualify any distinctions whatsoever. I don't mean to be obnoxious or pejorative in any way when I say this, but perhaps you can't find any relevant distinction between the two because you haven't personally experienced both emotions fully.

Oh there is a perceived difference sure. I'm speaking in terms of value. I'm not being very clear in what I'm saying, but my brain is rather frtizing out on me lately.

Sure they are experienced differently. By way of analogy, death by drowning feels different from death by suffocation, but either way its still death. Love and lust have a similar relationship--percieved differently, but ultimately still the same. One is no better than the other, one is not superior, or more divine or preferable, or whatever. In terms of value, there is no difference.

 

[loseyourname]

Love and lust have a similar relationship--percieved differently, but ultimately still the same. One is no better than the other, one is not superior, or more divine or preferable, or whatever. In terms of value, there is no difference.

That really depends on the species you are talking about. In k-selected species, particularly highly social species that spend a good deal of time learning from their parents, monogamy is of more value. In r-selected species, it is of virtually no value and lust is far preferable. Humans are a k-selected species and so monogamy (at least as long as your child is growing up) is advantageous.

 

[franznietzsche]

That really depends on the species you are talking about. In k-selected species, particularly highly social species that spend a good deal of time learning from their parents, monogamy is of more value. In r-selected species, it is of virtually no value and lust is far preferable. Humans are a k-selected species and so monogamy (at least as long as your child is growing up) is advantageous.

I'm done dealing with mixing definitions. Pick one and stick with it already.

For the last bloody time: Love in the "romantic" sense, big pink hearts, valentine's day, blah, blah, blah, is BS.

Pragmatic breeding strategies are a different context from the one under consideration. If you can't stick to a single definition in a discussion, I'm not going to waste my time trying to respond to you.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm done dealing with mixing definitions. Pick one and stick with it already.

For the last bloody time: Love in the "romantic" sense, big pink hearts, valentine's day, blah, blah, blah, is BS.

Everyone else seems pretty consistent in definitions. You're the only one who seems to be equating love with pink hearts and Valentine's day. Those have nothing to do with love. You don't have to be in love to give someone a pink heart or box of chocolate. Theoretically, you don't even need to like them.

Pragmatic breeding strategies are a different context from the one under consideration. If you can't stick to a single definition in a discussion, I'm not going to waste my time trying to respond to you.

They aren't. The question is about whether love exists. Your own argument is that it's all a neurobiological process, which neither loseyourname nor I refutes (and I don't think hypnagogue is refuting it either). What loseyourname and I are trying to convey, however, is that love and lust are not synonymous or different degrees of the same thing. They are two different emotions, most likely produced by neurobiological/neuroendocrine processes, which serve different functions for species survival. In the one case, you have lust, which can also be more dryly called motivation for sexual reproduction. This addresses the attraction between two people (or two of any species) that involves courtship and breeding. The only function to lust, or motivation for sexual reproduction, is for mating to occur. Once sexual satiety has been reached, it ends.

On the other hand, love is more of the process associated with long-term pair bonding. This is where loseyourname's example of K- vs R- strategy breeding comes into play. For species in which there is a long-term parental investment in raising offspring to maturity, such as humans, pair-bonding becomes important because having paternal assistance in raising off-spring increases the chances those offspring will survive. In such a case, lust isn't enough. The paternal investment doesn't end with mating. However, both males and females need to experience the processes involved with pair-bonding, otherwise the females will chase off the males, so it's not just a matter of the males needing to stick around but the willingness of the females to keep them around.

Now, in both situations, there is a selfish component. In the first case (lust), it's just to breed as quickly as possible to pass on genetic material to the next generation. In the second case (love), it's also advantageous to oneself to keep their mate around to help with the offspring, but this can be better accomplished by mutual affection.

There are different hormones involved in the two processes. In species in which there is little to no paternal investment in rearing of offspring, and pair-bonding does not occur, pretty much your basic sex steroids (estrogen, progesterone, testosterone) are all that's required to drive mating behavior (and a complex neurological system as well). In species that have a long-term paternal investement and pair bonding, oxytocin influences this affiliative behavior. Oxytocin during parturition is also important for females to form maternal bonds with their offspring, which is another affiliative behavior that humans describe as love.

Anyway, the original question is whether love is real, not whether love is special. You can observe behavior between two people who are in love that distinguishes them from those who are only in lust (this is not to say that two people who love each other can't also experience lust for each other, but the behaviors associated with each are different). For example, we can easily observe flirtation and sexual advances that are part of lust. When you witness two people who are also in love, you can observe things such as cohabitation when there is no sex happening, or "grooming" of one another. If you attempt to watch humans objectively, which is difficult being human, you will start to see differences between lustful and loving relationships. It has nothing to do with pink hearts. Actually, one of the signs I've noticed of loving relationships is that they stop worrying about things like pink hearts and Valentine's day. Those are displays of courtship for those who are in lust, and are no longer important for those secure in the bonds of love.

 

[Astronuc]

I had already seen that. The relevance?

Just testing your cerebral response.

For the last bloody time: Love in the "romantic" sense, big pink hearts, valentine's day, blah, blah, blah, is BS.

Totally wrong there.

Forget for a minute the tangible and materialistic expressions of love, e.g. stuff like pink hearts, cards, chocolate and more ostentious gifts like jewelry, expensive perfumes, etc.

Romantic love between a man and woman, especially when they are husband and wife, is absolutely not BS. It is absolutely wonderful.

The best part is having a soulmate and best friend with whom one can share one's thoughts and feelings, joys and concerns, and even the saddness and sorrows that are inevitable in life. The latter part is really important. The romance can be expressed in many ways - such as warm and tender embraces, tender kissing and so on. Then there is sharing music, poetry, ideas. There are shared activities, walks, watching a sunset, reading the paper, watching TV, cooking, gardening, yard work, house work, dinner out, movies, theatre, plays, musicals, concerts, parties, etc.

For a husband and wife, there is the most profound experience of childbirth. I was with my wife both times when my daughter and son were born, and it's difficult to express the profound and immense emotions of watching one's wife give birth and watching a child emerge from the womb. It's something that one has to experience to understand. And the whole time, one experiences the most postive emotions (like how really beautiful one's wife without the makeup and prep, and lack of sleep) as well as apprehension. In many cases, the woman is literally putting her life at risk to do this. That is one of the most profound human experience.

And then there are the gut-wrenching experiences with illness and death. I spent almost a year watching my youngest brother lose a long drawn out battle with leukemia. He had just started a medical practice as an obstetrical surgeon, and he was losing everything, including a 3 year old son and a young wife. My brother fought as hard as he could to hold on as long as he could for his son. In the end, he died a very slow and painful death. I was with him just before he slipped into unconsciousness. He died 4 days later, 3 days after my birthday, and 4 days after my father's birthday. I loved my brother so much, I would have gladly given my life for him then (I was 8.5 years older).

My wife helped me through that. I and my siblings helped and supported my parents as they lost their youngest son. At the gravesight, just after the ashes were interred, I held my father (very much a stoic) in my arms as he cried - the first time I had seen him cry. Love is being there to support one another in times of tremendous grief.

With Love comes great Joy, and with that also comes great risk of immense pain when that Love is lost.

Franz - Love is real, and Romantic Love is not BS.

It would appear that you have not personally experienced the Love yet. Hopefully you will someday.