What is love?

[paladinoflunaria]

It's time some logicians got together and seriously considered the definition of love. After all, we're the most likely to find the objective version. happppy

[Spartan26]

Love is...self sacrafice, seeking another's greatest good.

It's also a battlefield -- Patricia Andrzejewski Benatar

[int]

No you're not, because it depends on the individuals, the relationship, and the reactions thereof.

[paladinoflunaria]

No you're not, because it depends on the individuals, the relationship, and the reactions thereof.

Not an absolutist eh? Do different categories of love if it makes it easier.

[paladinoflunaria]

And I said, "we're," not "I'm."

[paladinoflunaria]

How about attached and detached/unconditional love?

[int]

Still can't touch it...I've been there and tried to sum it up somehow, but an element of randomness is thrown in. I've seen awkward couples work. And awkward couples fail. The entire spectrum...I've been paying attention because I fell in, stayed in, and am in love with wy wife. I've felt the same for over 9 years, since I was 16, when I met her.

Some couples operate on one philosophy, others another, and some don't even know what their sig-other is thinking.

I know what works for us, but I am NOT going to tell ANYONE that this will work for anyone else, because chances are, it won't (and I'm not being pessimistic, I live it and watch it in every relationship I see).

Love is different things to different people. For me it's a culmination of things, one of which is being able to be so mad at someone you can't bring yourself to even think about her, but still be able to sleep next to her.

Logic breaks down here, see? ___^

The only arguement I'll pay attention to anymore is a brain/chemical one. But then again I can go other directions with that.

<edit> And I don't think we're able to either. :) </edit>

[Hypnos]

... Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

[paladinoflunaria]

Hahaha! I knew that would come up eventually.

[Utopmk]

EQUATION:

Lust + Challenge+ Infatuation + Curiosity + Pheromones
+ Appreciation + Acceptance =Love.

Why ask logicans about love?
I have never been in love, by the classic definition of it.

[Division56]

We need to ask either an NF or an SJ.

[paladinoflunaria]

Well romantic love is crap. I'll get some dictionary ones to talk about...

[paladinoflunaria]

verb (past loved, past participle loved, present participle lov·ing, 3rd person present singular loves)

1. transitive and intransitive verb feel tender affection for: to feel tender affection for somebody, for example, a close relative or friend, or for something such as a place, an ideal, or an animal


2. transitive and intransitive verb feel desire for: to feel romantic and sexual desire and longing for somebody


3. transitive verb like very much: to like something or like doing something very much
I love watching old movies on TV.


4. transitive verb show kindness to: to feel and show kindness and charity to somebody
love one another and love your neighbor


love [ luv ]

noun (plural loves)

1. very strong affection: an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion

2. passionate attraction and desire: a passionate feeling of romantic desire and sexual attraction

3. somebody much loved: somebody who is loved romantically

4. romantic affair: a romantic affair, possibly sexual

5. strong liking: strong liking for or pleasure gained from something

6. something eliciting enthusiasm: something that elicits deep interest and enthusiasm in somebody

7. beloved: used as an affectionate word to somebody loved

[paladinoflunaria]

Again, there are different kinds of love. Romantic love is not objective, as it has its origins in the middle ages when troubadoures went around singing and writing poetry about sexuality.

[paladinoflunaria]

How about these?


Love, without desire to possess, knowing well that in the ultimate sense there is no possession and no possessor: this is the highest love.

Love, without selecting and excluding, knowing well that to do so means to create love's own contrasts: dislike, aversion and hatred.

Love, embracing impartially all sentient beings, and not only those who are useful, pleasing or amusing to us.

Love, but not the sensuous fire that burns, scorches and tortures, that inflicts more wounds than it cures - flaring up now, at the next moment being extinguished, leaving behind more coldness and loneliness than was felt before.

Love, that is a sublime nobility of heart and intellect which knows, understands and is ready to help.

[CosmicDust]

I've heard that some of the earlier things in Utopmk's equation tend to drop off over time in a long-term relationship.

I guess to me, love would most generally be a sense of connection to a person, thing, or even activity that is experienced as positive and enriching overall.

[Utopmk]

CosmicDust
PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:12 am Post subject:
I've heard that some of the earlier things in Utopmk's equation tend to drop off over time in a long-term relationship.

I guess to me, love would most generally be a sense of connection to a person, thing, or even activity that is experienced as positive and enriching overall.

Once the mystery, challenge, and lust are gone, it is not love, but something less.

[CosmicDust]

So that would imply that most married couples have long-since fallen out of love, and love usually only exists for the first stages of a relationship. Sometimes, though, couples can still stand, if not appreciate, each other for the rest of their lives, even though love is mostly a thing of the past.

[Utopmk]

How sad it would be, when you have reached a point, where all you can do is merely tolerate your partner. Imagine all the time you have invested into a relationship, or marriage, that, in the end, has been reduced to something less than love.

[Utopmk]

I once heard that maternal love is caused only by instinct, and curiousity.

[CosmicDust]

I have my doubts that love can even really last. Maybe in some very rare cases it can, but if it needs all the ingredients you mention, it's going to be tough to keep it going. Maybe people can fall out of love momentarily and then fall back in or something.

I can't imagine myself maintaining lust and infatuation for someone for a lifetime. Unless I die young. If I find "one of The Ones" when I'm old (as in post-menopause), well, my biological fires won't have much left to them, so lust will probably be quite difficult to develop or maintain. I might not have much left for pheromones either.

[Utopmk]

Obviously some of those factors may have less importanace as the relationship progresses. An eventual lack of interest in sex is enevitable, and infatuation could evolve into a healthy attachment, but reducing it any further than that , would decrease the degree of love that the relationship was founded on.

[Johnny]

How about:
Love is the effort to secure the success of one's genetic variation.

[Utopmk]

I thought they called that sex.

[CosmicDust]

Love is valuable for genetic survival because it keeps sex partners emotionally bonded to each other and to their children, kin, and friends. This helps humans reap the advantages of being social creatures, securing life's necessities more easily than lone beasts.

[Utopmk]

So children who grow up in households without love, are less likely to survive?

[Johnny]

I would say yes, and I would also offer that they are less likely love if they make it to adulthood.

[CosmicDust]

Possibly, if their parents' lack of love leads their parents to not provide for their needs enough. Perhaps in our society, they're more likely to grow up maladjusted, although this may depend on their natural temperament; there are the Dave Pelzer ("Boy Called 'It'") types who overcome a lack of love, and there are "natural born killer" types who can grow up loved and still not be able to learn how to love.

[Utopmk]

I've seen children that come from abusive and/or neglective homes become the most successful people I know, while children from loving/over-loving family become spoiled and dependant on their parents.

[Johnny]

Yes, but I'm talking about a part of your genes getting passed on generations in advance. It's fantastic that children can become successful despite neglect and abuse and I wouldn't want to have it any other way. But the more love the better when it comes to the long-distance future.

[Vagabond]

See, what sucks is that in english you use the same word for loving (mother to child, for instance) and for being in love... grrr. I have to rethink the entire thing out now.

[paladinoflunaria]

Cosmic Dust said:

I have my doubts that love can even really last.

The kind of love Utopmk is talking about never does. The kind of feelings someone gets from this kind of love are caused by secretion of chemicals. After about 2 years, the body develops a tolerance to these chemicals.

Johnny said:

How about:
Love is the effort to secure the success of one's genetic variation.

That seems reasonable. However, can you tell me one person who has been successful?

If your wife ran off with your boss, would you be happy that she's found this great relationship? Didn't think so. How much do you love her then?

Why do people cry at funerals/ when someone dies?


I would say yes, and I would also offer that they are less likely love if they make it to adulthood.

Oh, so if we don't love our kids, they won't grow up to delude themselves into this romance thing that is doomed to failure, and they won't therefore have to suffer when they make the realization that they've been deluding themselves/ when their "loved" one dies or is seperated from them by some other means (running off with someone else)? That would be just awful.

It seems to me that no matter how "successful" people are, we're all still stuck in the same place. We all still eat, drink, sleep, age, get ill, suffer, and die. Their successes didn't seem to change anything- even for them.[/i]

[Strephonade]

Warning: not for the faint of heart.

94 entries for love (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=love)

42 entries for affection (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=love)

34 entries for devotion (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=devotion)

Since these terms can have similar meanings, a lot of the synonyms are repeated. Still, that's a lotta wordage! There are times though, when more clarity is sorely needed.

[nobarcode]

94 entries for love (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=love)
.....more clarity is sorely needed.
That link sums it up for me. When talking about "Love", it reminds me of a Sufi teaching about the elephant.

I tend to go with the "dictionary" definition(s) of "it".

[Johnny]

Paladinoflunaria: It seems to me that no matter how "successful" people are, we're all still stuck in the same place. We all still eat, drink, sleep, age, get ill, suffer, and die. Their successes didn't seem to change anything- even for them.
I agree. The definition of love I offered is designed to be forward-thinking.

[paladinoflunaria]

I'm not sure I understand, Johnny. Please elaborate.

[Avengardh]

Hm....from my own parents' experience...they still love each other after 22 yrs of being married...

If you want to ask me, I find that crazy, but my opinion of love is not exactly the best...

To me though, love is the ability to accept (even like) and overlook someone's differences in order to be in companionship forever.
Like they say, you take in the good with the bad, and it takes courage and patience to do so.

Not like I have really been in love, but I guess I came close to it O.O

~*Aven*~

[Johnny]

I'm not sure I understand, Johnny. Please elaborate.

I'm not trying to sell "success" here, I'm trying to sell "endurance". CosmicDust is articulating details better than I have on this.

Of course, being in love and staying connected to my family and friends is much more rewarding than contemplating the odds my genes will have of being utilized centuries from now. Just thought that definition might offer much to think about.

[paladinoflunaria]

Avengardh wrote:

To me though, love is the ability to accept (even like) and overlook someone's differences in order to be in companionship forever.
Like they say, you take in the good with the bad, and it takes courage and patience to do so.

I think that's pretty profound, actually. This is but a brief summary, but I think that's the general idea. On a side note: there is no such thing as companionship forever. I think that many people would do well to realize that one day, everything they have will become seperated from them. Nothing lasts forever.

[Division56]

Avengardh wrote:

To me though, love is the ability to accept (even like) and overlook someone's differences in order to be in companionship forever.
Like they say, you take in the good with the bad, and it takes courage and patience to do so.

I think that's pretty profound, actually. This is but a brief summary, but I think that's the general idea. On a side note: there is no such thing as companionship forever. I think that many people would do well to realize that one day, everything they have will become seperated from them. Nothing lasts forever.


You should hear the ISFJ's response to that... :cheers: :nerd: ;)

[Avengardh]

Avengardh wrote:
[quote] I think that's pretty profound, actually. This is but a brief summary, but I think that's the general idea. On a side note: there is no such thing as companionship forever. I think that many people would do well to realize that one day, everything they have will become seperated from them. Nothing lasts forever.

I already know that, but if we are talking about love here, something had to be irrational, heh.

But, personally I think that love does last forever, call me whatever you like, but true love should, or else what would I have to look up to, I already banned most of every other general myth ^_^

Like someone else being able to understand me ^_-

~*Aven*~

[paladinoflunaria]

Does love have to be irrational?

[jimkopelli]

Pal... I know I've told you this, and you know I've told you this... sit down and bloody read "Time Enough For Love" by Heinlein! Make time. That goes for the rest of you, too.
Back on topic...
No, not necessarily. A couple could have good, rational reasons for being in love.

[paladinoflunaria]

I'll borrow it from you then.

[Avengardh]

Does love have to be irrational?

I haven't heard of any situation or experienced it otherwise, so I am basing my opinion on that, but everything is possible.


~*Aven*~

[Google Monster]

I love you all.

[jimkopelli]

But why? Do you have a reason, or is it irrational, or are you just saying things?

[jittus rye]

I don't think love has to be with the heart (the feeling). I think you can love without feeling.

[Google Monster]

Feeling is abstract and so is love. You can love without expression but not without feeling. Love without expression is love with inner feeling.

[antireconciler]

I don't think love has to be with the heart (the feeling). I think you can love without feeling.

I think I agree.

Perhaps love is simply acceptance. To love yourself, is there more than self-acceptance required? Would this not apply to others? When you feel your "love" outside of the simplicity of true neutrality, is it not a manifestation of fear? Try it for yourself.

[paladinoflunaria]

I agree with antireconciler.

[jittus rye]

Are you saying love is similar to fear of not being accepted? I think anyone that loves another doesn't necissarily fear being no longer accepted by the person, but they certainly would be distraunt by it.

But then fears can just be desires, and when one fears not having something that they desire, what is that? Love isn't the same as desire, or at least I do not think it is. Perhaps love is something different to different people. If someone loves their pet, and they love their child, they are much more inclined to die for the child than the pet.

How different is the love of a child from the love of a mate?

Is love just an instinct that humans and other animals have developed to survive that can be disregarded in present time? If love is instinct, and not learned behavior then one would assume that love is only physical and not of ones true self, their mind. But the flaw with that is that ones physical self and mental self work in conjunction with one another. And if that is taken as true, then love is but simply an ideal. Sort of like religion, and capitalism. People participate in it and believe in it, well some, because they think it is good. Some may hate it, but they still take part in it.

[antireconciler]

Are you saying love is similar to fear of not being accepted? I think anyone that loves another doesn't necissarily fear being no longer accepted by the person, but they certainly would be distraunt by it.

But then fears can just be desires, and when one fears not having something that they desire, what is that? Love isn't the same as desire, or at least I do not think it is. Perhaps love is something different to different people. If someone loves their pet, and they love their child, they are much more inclined to die for the child than the pet.

Love, as I have defined it, is fearless, desireless. As I think you say, desire is based in fear. I think a person would more readily die for thier child than thier pet because they are more attached to thier child emotionally. They fear for thier child.


If love is instinct, and not learned behavior then one would assume that love is only physical and not of ones true self, their mind. But the flaw with that is that ones physical self and mental self work in conjunction with one another. And if that is taken as true, then love is but simply an ideal.

Love, existing neutrally, is instinctual, and exists in the mind's absence. Perhaps this is taking things too far, but, if love is an ideal, than we seek and end to the mind which creates the fears that corrupt our natural love.

It is paradoxical that it would need to be sought, though. It is but a definition.

[candela]

All emotions, including love, are just ways for self driven animals to keep them surviving as an entire race. I think I might write out a few pages of my thoughts on this sometime.

[CosmicDust]

I agree, candela, except for the "just" part - we can choose to make more of these things if we so desire, but I do see emotions as having their roots in Darwinian survival strategy.

[paladinoflunaria]

Love isn't necessarily an emotion. It can be a logical concept.

[Crazy]

I believe i have found something synonymous to "love"


Main Entry: de·lir·i·um
Pronunciation: di-'lir-E-&m
Function: noun
: a mental disturbance characterized by confusion, disordered speech, and hallucinations

[paladinoflunaria]

Heheheh...

How about the desire for others to be happy, no strings attached.

[dubbeltop]

love is the ultimate artform between to humans period.

[Birdsnest]

Love is Acceptance of someone or something in many different degrees of itself.

[Lee]

Love, whether for yourself, someone else, your work or a hobby is ultimately the only thing worth living for.

[Pooja]

Love is a counter-evolutionary phenomenon... Lust is all we really needed for our species to survive. But somehow, through some inexplicable force, we've come to feel this altruistic, bonding feeling. Only through love can we reach our highest potential as human beings.

[Lee]

Love is a counter-evolutionary phenomenon... Lust is all we really needed for our species to survive. But somehow, through some inexplicable force, we've come to feel this altruistic, bonding feeling. Only through love can we reach our highest potential as human beings.That makes no sense whatsoever ;P

[Pooja]

Love makes no sense whatsoever... and I just came back from a biology lecture, so the counter-evolutionary phenomenon of ecological atruism was still on my mind.

:blush:

[booyalab]

how convenient for science they thought up a scientific-sounding name for something that has been in religion and spirituality for centuries

[Lee]

Love makes no sense whatsoever... and I just came back from a biology lecture, so the counter-evolutionary phenomenon of ecological atruism was still on my mind.

:blush:Altruism isn't counter-evolutionary, there are perfectly rational evolutionary explanations that not only explain altruism, but make testable predictions about how people and animals should behave.

[Pooja]

In a few rare cases, it is explainable. But more often than not, atruism is not something that is naturally selected for. Sarcificing your "fitness" for another is NOT the best way to pass on your genes (which is the biological "purpose" for life)
*While this is more fun to talk about than love...we shouldn't derail the thread

[Lee]

how convenient for science they thought up a scientific-sounding name for something that has been in religion and spirituality for centuriesI guess that's supposed to be clever, but I don't actually understand what your point is.

Scientists have investigated many phenomena that have been part of religion and spirituality for centuries. Mathematics was originally a religious and spiritual endevour, trying to understand the mind of God by studying the consistencies and patterns of experience, now it is a key part of science, used for very much the same purposes though no longer necessarily religious.

Scientists and theists have names for the same thing, so what?

[Lee]

In a few rare cases, it is explainable. But more often than not, atruism is not something that is naturally selected for.
*While this is more fun to talk about than love...we shouldn't derail the threadAltruism needs quite particular precursors and circumstances in order to evolve, but there is nothing counter-evolutionary about it. I have yet to see one example of altruistic or reciprocal behaviour that didn't fit the evolutionary explanations we have, the thing is that altruism that isn't "naturally selected for" would be heavily selected against, since it confers a benefit to competitors at a cost to the altruist! for altruism to exist requires either dumb luck mutations that produce maladaptive altruism, or to become species wide it needs to have been selectively advantageous.

The thing about love, altruism, reciprocity, friendship etc. is that they form self-reinforcing cycles of value between those involved, where each mutually beneficial transaction makes the partner more valuable, this is compounded by the fact that we should value those who value us, this bounces back and forth making each agent value the other more and more... this might be falling in love. You presume that all agents have conflicting goals, but in nature there are many times in which the goals of two organisms are congruent, sexual reproduction is a prime example, where cooperation is necessary because it take two baby :rolleyes:

[booyalab]

I guess that's supposed to be clever, but I don't actually understand what your point is.

Scientists have investigated many phenomena that have been part of religion and spirituality for centuries. Mathematics was originally a religious and spiritual endevour, trying to understand the mind of God by studying the consistencies and patterns of experience, now it is a key part of science, used for very much the same purposes though no longer necessarily religious.

'counter-evolutionary ecological altruism' is the philosophical equivalent of 'custodial engineer' or 'sanitation engineer'

I dont believe that science has any business trying to explain morality, just like neither a janitor nor a garbage hauler have engineering degrees.

[last_caress]

http://www.soimmature.com/images/stepped_in_doo_2.gif

[Lee]

'counter-evolutionary ecological altruism' is the philosophical equivalent of 'custodial engineer' or 'sanitation engineer'"counter-evolutionary ecological altruism" makes no sense.


I dont believe that science has any business trying to explain morality, just like neither a janitor nor a garbage hauler have engineering degrees.Not any business? Science just investigates things that happen, that includes investigating how human beings make decisions. Science makes no prescriptive judgments about how we should behave (though individual scientists might), it simply garners us with more knowledge so that we can make more informed decisions.

Morality and science occupy the same world, but are distinct.

[cjs55]

http://ckjcwf.ytmnd.com/

[booyalab]

"counter-evolutionary ecological altruism" makes no sense.

Not any business? Science just investigates things that happen, that includes investigating how human beings make decisions. Science makes no prescriptive judgments about how we should behave (though individual scientists might), it simply garners us with more knowledge so that we can make more informed decisions.

Morality and science occupy the same world, but are distinct.

no it makes perfect sense, it's altruism that can't be readily explained by evolutionary principles and so 'counter-evolutionary..ecological' was slapped on there to give the impression that it could still be analyzed scientifically.

Science is as much of an institution as religion and neither are immune from corruption. Your idealized version of science barely exists.

[Lee]

no it makes perfect sense, it's altruism that can't be readily explained by evolutionary principlesYes it can and has been. The theories are very solid, mathematically demonstatable in simulations, make actual predictions about animal (including human) behaviour, as well as explaining how we got to where we are now


and so 'counter-evolutionary..ecological' was slapped on there to give the impression that it could still be analyzed scientifically.That actually makes it sound very unscientific, since evolution is meant to apply to all organisms, something that is counter-evolutionary would actually be a falsification, demanding a cause which wasn't evolution.

Half the problem is the ambiguous use of the word "evolution," which is not the same as natural selection.


Science is as much of an institution as religion and neither are immune from corruption. Your idealized version of science barely exists.Science is not a being or a creature that can be psychoanalyzed as being corrupted, science is a method. You are confusing science the method with those people who call themselves scientists and the institutions they make. Science the method is just an abstract idea like 4 + 6 = 10, it cannot be corrupted in the sense you imply, only misunderstood.

Of course, you failed to actually make a case for why science shouldn't try and explain human behaviour, but instead seem to simply be questioning scientists themselves, who for the most part subscribe to method of learning about the universe that is far superior to religion. The bible doesn't tell us how to perform open-heart surgery, build an aricraft or venture to the moon, but it does give people a moral rule-set that has proved successful in the past, if you object at so-called "rational moral rule-sets" of the mordern world, I share your distaste, communists thought of themselves as "rational scientists," we all know which moral rule-set proved superior there.

All science can give provide us with knowledge to aid in our decisions, it cannot define how we should act toward others. The most it can do is explain why we chose to act as we did.

[joft]

evolution doesn't select for love, it selects for genes that affect various neurochemical receptors or producers, etc, which have many complicated outcomes across a broad range of behaviors. if having more of that neurochemical or something gives a benefit most of the time that outweighs the defecit of any self-defeating behaviors that may arise in extreme cases (not everybody goes around sacrificing their lives for other people constantly), then the gene that caused that would be positively selected, like the sickle cell anemia gene.

and "lust" might not be sufficient for a species whose mating pattern is (at least somewhat) monogamous pair-bonding. but, I also agree that biological evolution can't explain it all. once we get into the realm of cognition, instead of having costs/benefits of genes we can have costs/benefits of learned behaviors or learned parameters for how to use innate behaviors. we can have cultural stories and mythologies about the acts of some self-sacrificial hero that get our juices flowing and activate our reward centers and stuff.

I think love at a very basic level is explainable by evolution, but we as a species are at a point now where our evolutionarily determined biology isn't the whole picture. our "nature" is interacting with all this "artificial" stuff. we can ingest substances which we engineered to have a certain effect on our neurochemicals, we can read books and identify with characters and form our personalities based on the roles we see in fictional social circles, we can transmit ideas- effectively altering the structure of each others brains- across thousands of miles and to one person or thousands of people. i don't think biology alone can explain it all, but the interaction between biology and "culture" can, imo.

but I also don't think that it being explained by biology wouldn't belittle it. if its "just neurochemicals," well fuck, they're my neurochemicals, so it is me.

[last_caress]

'counter-evolutionary ecological altruism' is the philosophical equivalent of 'custodial engineer' or 'sanitation engineer'

I dont believe that science has any business trying to explain morality, just like neither a janitor nor a garbage hauler have engineering degrees.

Morality stems from the same universal processes that govern particular interactions. Which in fact is fundamentally what it is anyway.
I don't see how it falls outside the domain of science to explain it's causality.

Spirituality is superstition legitimized soley by nomenclature.

A rose can still be appreciated for it's prettiness even if we understand the mechanics.

[Pooja]

i don't think biology alone can explain it all, but the interaction between biology and "culture" can, imo.

.
:cheers:

[Lee]

evolution doesn't select for love, it selects for genes that affect various neurochemical receptors or producers, etc, which have many complicated outcomes across a broad range of behaviors.Not quite true.

Natural selection selects the phenotypes, not the genes themselves. It selects genes only insofar as they reliably produce adaptive phenotypes, so evolution occurs on the genetic level as different genes are retained as a consequence of selecting thier phenotypes. The problem with phenotypes is that there is no one gene per phenotypes, phenotypes are a product of the environment and the particular combination of genes. So the selective preservation of adaptive genes can be a little sloppy because of sexual recombination.


and "lust" might not be sufficient for a species whose mating pattern is (at least somewhat) monogamous pair-bonding. but, I also agree that biological evolution can't explain it all. once we get into the realm of cognition, instead of having costs/benefits of genes we can have costs/benefits of learned behaviors or learned parameters for how to use innate behaviors.That doesn't mean such behaviour are counter-evolutionary. Evolution selects for cognitive mechanisms that learn, because evolution isn't like a invisible manipulator making sure every single action is adaptive, it's just a recipe preserver and is plays probabilities... the selection of learning meachnisms is just one way of dealing with uncertain probabilities.


but I also don't think that it being explained by biology wouldn't belittle it. if its "just neurochemicals," well fuck, they're my neurochemicals, so it is me.Yeah, the "just neurochemicals" line doesn't make sense, like me saying "just some mystical non-coporeal energy that isn't real."

Neurochemicals and meaning are not mutually exclusive. Your feelings are no less your feelings just because they have some kind of vague explanation, even then they have no real explanation, nobody is ever actually going to understand how your particular brain, how your particular neurochemicals came to a meaningful feeling at any given time and place.

[joft]

yeah, selection doesn't work with a scalpel and microscope, but with volcanoes, meteors, draughts, ice ages, plagues, swords, bombs, sanctions, and a lot of aggregate sexual lotteries. but the planet could explode and then none of us would be selected. it's easy to get stuck thinking in terms of rules, especially in science, but there are no rules

[Pooja]

"They found that people who were in love had lower levels of serotonin.
(serotonin controls impulses and tendency to obsess)
In fact, their serotonin levels were found to be the same as people with obsessive compulsive disorder.

Speaking at the time, the researchers said the finding may explain why people who are in love can sometimes obsess about their partner. "

http://www.sensualism.com/love/romantic-brains.html

(the website also has more interesting links on the bottom.)

[Shimpei]

Interesting.
When you're in love you're not yourself. It's actually a miserable state of mind because you become dependent or addicted - definitely not a healthy thing. I agree with the obsessive-compulsive attitude: it means you live in the world of irrational imagination: lies, deception, self-deception and intensified expectation.
And it's interesting that when people are in love they show themselves to be supernaturally nice persons. And when they sober up they are themselves again.
The keywords are: deception and fakeness, IMO.

[booyalab]

Morality stems from the same universal processes that govern particular interactions. Which in fact is fundamentally what it is anyway.
I don't see how it falls outside the domain of science to explain it's causality.

Spirituality is superstition legitimized soley by nomenclature.

A rose can still be appreciated for it's prettiness even if we understand the mechanics.

science addresses the 'how', morality addresses 'why'

if you can't understand that, and the implications, there's no use for me to try to explain further

[last_caress]

science addresses the 'how', morality addresses 'why'

if you can't understand that, and the implications, there's no use for me to try to explain further

Morality tends to be.... irrational.
The best decisions and information IMO are derived rationally, and 'morality' as a basis for such is worthless.

[Eileen]

Morality tends to be.... irrational.
The best decisions and information IMO are derived rationally, and 'morality' as a basis for such is worthless.

How are you defining rational/irrational?

I think morality/ethics can be a basis for rational decision making. Morality is a tool; its source may be (sorry Macguffin and company) arational/alogical, but I don't think that the decisions that one makes based on morality are necessarily irrational ones. I bet there's someone here who can express this better than I'm doing right now.

[last_caress]

How are you defining rational/irrational?

I think morality/ethics can be a basis for rational decision making. Morality is a tool; its source may be (sorry Macguffin and company) arational/alogical, but I don't think that the decisions that one makes based on morality are necessarily irrational ones. I bet there's someone here who can express this better than I'm doing right now.

The scientific method.
It's the cure for snake oil.

Since what is commonly accepted as morality is often justified on religious principles, I can't see how it can be part of a logically consistent decision making process.
The foundation is rotten.

I prefer the term 'ethics' because of it's lack of religious baggage, though I understand that some will use those terms interchangably.

I'm not saying that positive outcome in a given situation cannot be attained through irrational methods, but that your odds are better using a rational strategy, with the bonus of formalized predictability.

edit: I should qualify that I do not believe the above is the best approach to art.

[Prozac]

How are you defining rational/irrational?

I think morality/ethics can be a basis for rational decision making. Morality is a tool; its source may be (sorry Macguffin and company) arational/alogical, but I don't think that the decisions that one makes based on morality are necessarily irrational ones. I bet there's someone here who can express this better than I'm doing right now.

Morality scientists.. aesthetic appreciation for the principles of conduct

....for such revered authorities with refined taste in the unquantifiable, its a shame they sketch their philosophical prowess with the crude earnestness of children...


Morality is a tool

.. like the zone of wetland preservation is a tool for the growth of trees

Many, if not most, of the decisions made are emotional and not "rational"...

[Prozac]

edit: I should qualify that I do not believe the above is the best approach to art.

:rofl:

I should learn to paint a conversation

[outcast]

Heheheh...

How about the desire for others to be happy, no strings attached.


I thought that was altruism...

[outcast]

... Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.


Awww man! I wanted to post that one.:worthy:

[Conan]

I thought that was altruism...

I think altruism is more keeping them alive than it is happy.

[Fade2Black]

Love is just a mirage and nothing more & nothing less...

[attila_the_hunny]

Love is just a mirage and nothing more & nothing less...

I would welcome a mirage in a desert.

[Eileen]

I prefer the term 'ethics' because of it's lack of religious baggage, though I understand that some will use those terms interchangably.



I prefer ethics also, but they're the same thing! Morality and ethics come from the same place, basically, and I don't think that's necessarily religion. I mean... many people learn the rules of morality or ethics (or whatever you want to call it) from religion, but... I suspect that the general ethical or moral code came first, not the religion. I suppose that's debatable, and it's really just a gut instinct that I don't have time to follow up on much right now.

A good example of a moral/ethic we follow is that there are these "rights" people have. I'm pretty sure that no scientific process is going to prove that people have inalienable rights. We use it as an axiom, though, and decisions follow according to that principal. Because people have an inalienable right to (oh, I don't know) liberty, institutionalized slavery should not be allowed. That decision logically, rationally follows the principal that has its sources elsewhere besides the scientific method.



Many, if not most, of the decisions made are emotional and not "rational"...

Emotional and irrational are not synonymous. I like Jung's understanding of the rational and the irrational. Thinking and feeling are both rational functions--they lead us to make judgments based on certain criteria. Intuition and sensing, however, are irrational.

[Ella]

Love is a feeling and a behaviour that grows over time from respect, admiration, familiarity, and attraction.

[last_caress]

I prefer ethics also, but they're the same thing! Morality and ethics come from the same place, basically, and I don't think that's necessarily religion. I mean... many people learn the rules of morality or ethics (or whatever you want to call it) from religion, but... I suspect that the general ethical or moral code came first, not the religion. I suppose that's debatable, and it's really just a gut instinct that I don't have time to follow up on much right now.

I knew you would say that, and that's specifically why I used the term "justify" rather than originate. Origin is more a matter of where you decide to stop on the causal tree, or where it ends due to ignorance.
Philosophically I favor a fundamentally mechanistic model ie. "Chaos" is due to lack of knowledge.
Thus like I said earlier, the origin of morals is tracable to bumping of particles if you want to go that far back.
A little closer to home, scale and practicality is to say that morals are extensions of the animal instincts, good and bad, that got us here.



A good example of a moral/ethic we follow is that there are these "rights" people have. I'm pretty sure that no scientific process is going to prove that people have inalienable rights. We use it as an axiom, though, and decisions follow according to that principal. Because people have an inalienable right to (oh, I don't know) liberty, institutionalized slavery should not be allowed. That decision logically, rationally follows the principal that has its sources elsewhere besides the scientific method.


Empathy is a rational assumption.
From there I believe that the 'do unto others' system logically extends.
Incidentally, that philosophy/strategy was the most overall successful in a cellular automata simulation I recall reading about. :)



Emotional and irrational are not synonymous.

I agree with you there.

[Lee]

If John commits a crime then John should be punished. John Commits a crime. Therefore John should be punished.

If P then Q, P : Q

Ah, isn't morality just wonderfully rational? :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But oddly, rationality is not so rational.

All hamburgers are made of beef;
All beef is a food;
Therefore hamburgers are a food;

But why accept it?Logical right? well you might object. Ah, but you have to say "If all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is a food then hamburgers are food," fair enough.

A new premise could be used "If it is true that 'all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is food then hamburgers are food,' then hamburgers are food" But why accept this? So let's introduce a new premise "If it is true that "it is true that 'all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is food then hamburgers are food,' then hamburgers are food' the hamburgers are food"....

I am going to stop here, because we could go on until we die, point is you can't justify rationality using rationality, since you just create this infinite regress. In order to judge anything right or wrong, you need some standard of judgment, but since you are trying to justify logic, you cannot use logic as the standard of judgment. Funny thing though, if being rational isn't a rational decision, what is it?

[last_caress]

If John commits a crime then John should be punished. John Commits a crime. Therefore John should be punished.

If P then Q, P : Q

Ah, isn't morality just wonderfully rational? :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But oddly, rationality is not so rational.

All hamburgers are made of beef;
All beef is a food;

Therefore hamburgers are a food;

But why accept it?Logical right? well you might object. Ah, but you have to say "If all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is a food then hamburgers are food," fair enough.

A new premise could be used "If it is true that 'all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is food then hamburgers are food,' then hamburgers are food" But why accept this? So let's introduce a new premise "If it is true that "it is true that 'all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is food then hamburgers are food,' then hamburgers are food' the hamburgers are food"....

I am going to stop here, because we could go on until we die, point is you can't justify rationality using rationality, since you just create this infinite regress. In order to judge anything right or wrong, you need some standard of judgment, but since you are trying to justify logic, you cannot use logic as the standard of judgment. Funny thing though, if being rational isn't a rational decision, what is it?

As a hierarchal determinant, technology is analogous to size and muscular force in the animal kingdom, especially in it's implication of increased potential for grievous bodily harm.
Thus greater technological advancement often correlates with dominance, an assertion which I believe is apparent without much analysis.
Rapid technological advancement is greatly facilitated by rational methods.

Rationality really is a rational choice from a practical human standpoint.

Nice exercise, but I also believe that rationality implies some emphasis on practicality. :)

[aether]

I am reminded of Night at the Roxbury for some reason....

[domokun]

If John commits a crime then John should be punished. John Commits a crime. Therefore John should be punished.

If P then Q, P : Q

Ah, isn't morality just wonderfully rational? :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But oddly, rationality is not so rational.

All hamburgers are made of beef;
All beef is a food;
Therefore hamburgers are a food;

But why accept it?Logical right? well you might object. Ah, but you have to say "If all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is a food then hamburgers are food," fair enough.

A new premise could be used "If it is true that 'all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is food then hamburgers are food,' then hamburgers are food" But why accept this? So let's introduce a new premise "If it is true that "it is true that 'all hamburgers are made of beef and beef is food then hamburgers are food,' then hamburgers are food' the hamburgers are food"....

I am going to stop here, because we could go on until we die, point is you can't justify rationality using rationality, since you just create this infinite regress. In order to judge anything right or wrong, you need some standard of judgment, but since you are trying to justify logic, you cannot use logic as the standard of judgment. Funny thing though, if being rational isn't a rational decision, what is it?

Lee, you are obviously incompetent as an object oriented programmer. Doesn't composition mean anything to you? Beef is food, but hamburgers are NOT beef. They CONTAIN beef. There is a difference. The difference between UNION and INTERSECTION. What are you an 8th grader?

Similarly, a telephone is COMPOSED of a receiver and circuits. It is NOT a receiver or a circuit.

[Lee]

Lee, you are obviously incompetent as an object oriented programmer. Doesn't composition mean anything to you? Beef is food, but hamburgers are NOT beef. They CONTAIN beef. There is a difference. The difference between UNION and INTERSECTION. What are you an 8th grader?Two words... conditional premise. Plus, I can define "hamburger" to mean "beef in a disc shape" if I choose to, it doesn't really matter about the content of the argument, replace it with Ps and Qs if it makes you feel better.

You obviously spectacularly missed the point and are just trying to troll, so I am going to request that you just get banned, I don't really care to continue interacting with you.

[DoubleThought]

Love is a a chemical reaction inside your brain

Just like everything else.....

[domokun]

Two words... conditional premise. Plus, I can define "hamburger" to mean "beef in a disc shape" if I choose to, it doesn't really matter about the content of the argument, replace it with Ps and Qs if it makes you feel better.

You obviously spectacularly missed the point and are just trying to troll, so I am going to request that you just get banned, I don't really care to continue interacting with you.
If you go to a restaurant asking for a hamburger they don't hand over a disc of Beef. They give you a sandwich that CONTAINS beef.

Don't ever look for a job in the finance industry.

[Lee]

As a hierarchal determinant, technology is analogous to size and muscular force in the animal kingdom, especially in it's implication of increased potential for grievous bodily harm.
Thus greater technological advancement often correlates with dominance, an assertion which I believe is apparent without much analysis.
Rapid technological advancement is greatly facilitated by rational methods.Sure, it works so keep doing it, it still isn't a rational choice to be rational since it will always create that infinite regress.


Rationality really is a rational choice from a practical human standpoint.It can't be though, it'll always lead to that infinite regress. That doesn't mean it isn't the right choice, it's simply an irrational one, it's an ethical choice.


Nice exercise, but I also believe that rationality implies some emphasis on practicality. :)That just means empirical feedback, which I could question on similar grounds.

In a nutshell, no line of reasoning can follow explicit rules all the way down, it's like looking for the first cause, you just have to accept some things.

[mr. treat]

Love is a a chemical reaction inside your brain

Just like everything else.....

how is toothpase a chemical reaction in my brain?

[Pooja]

The tast and sensation of toothpaste, when you (hopefully...I'm not sure, b/c you're British-) brush your teeth with it, is a result of a chemical reaction in your brain.

[mr. treat]

The tast and sensation of toothpaste, when you (hopefully...I'm not sure, b/c you're British-) brush your teeth with it, is a result of a chemical reaction in your brain.

true enough, but the toothpaste still exists when i'm not brushing my teeth.

what makes you think i am british?

[domokun]

true enough, but the toothpaste still exists when i'm not brushing my teeth.

what makes you think i am british?
Your location: maine, very british.

[Pooja]

Sorry, I was referring to Lee (who is indeed British), and got mixed up

[Lee]

The tast and sensation of toothpaste, when you (hopefully...I'm not sure, b/c you're British-) brush your teeth with it, is a result of a chemical reaction in your brain.Yeah, you can't even buy toothpaste over here and only the wealthy can afford toothbrushes.

[mr. treat]

Sorry, I was referring to Lee (who is indeed British), and got mixed up

*brushes teeth*
i'm slightly insulted. to avoid further confusion--

[Lee]

i'm slightly insulted. to avoid further confusion--Insulted? charming....

[joft]

geography is a big biased conspiracy among cartographers with ulterior motives and vested interests. have YOU ever verified the accuracy of these so called "maps"?

[last_caress]

Sure, it works so keep doing it, it still isn't a rational choice to be rational since it will always create that infinite regress.

I agree that it's ultimately self-referential/dependent.
However, from a practical standpoint reality bears out my assertion where mating is the ostensible purpose and dominance is insurance.

[Lee]

However, from a practical standpoint reality bears out my assertion where mating is the ostensible purpose and dominance is insurance.I have no idea what that means

[last_caress]

I have no idea what that means

Real physical phenomena trump philosophy.


In a nutshell, no line of reasoning can follow explicit rules all the way down, it's like looking for the first cause, you just have to accept some things.

That we know of, but otherwise yes.

[Lee]

Real physical phenomena trump philosophy.Philosophy comes first, has to, such as your philosophy that real physical phenomena trump philosophy ;P

Mating does not have to be the purpose and dominance doesn't guaruntee insurance against anything. A genetic mutation can leave a person with no sex drive, their life is anything but about mating. Not everyone can be dominant, otherwise you just get a lot of fighting, physical systems, like biology can select in favour of submissive individuals.

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but your genes, the bits you are made of do not dictate purpose.

[Zephyrus055]

What is love?

An emotional reaction that you associate with as feeling good. It is generally produced when socially connecting with people sharing a synergistic advantage with you, especially a close family member or friend.

[last_caress]

Philosophy comes first, has to, such as your philosophy that real physical phenomena trump philosophy ;P

Philosophy needs hardware to run on.



Mating does not have to be the purpose and dominance doesn't guaruntee insurance against anything. A genetic mutation can leave a person with no sex drive, their life is anything but about mating. Not everyone can be dominant, otherwise you just get a lot of fighting, physical systems, like biology can select in favour of submissive individuals.

I believe that the most fundamental feature of terrestrial life is self-perpetuation, and that everything about the life cycle revolves around it.
All of this "plumage" is the result of competition and interaction of a ridiculous amount of environmental variables.



I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but your genes, the bits you are made of do not dictate purpose.

That's why I said "ostensible".
I'm mechanistic.
I think they do.

Anyway mate, :cheers: to an interesting diversion. I'm not really feeling like debating this particular line further.