[List All Topics] [Start Topic] [Search] [Show Thread Index] [Help]

[Not Logged In / Login / Register]

Sort: [Threaded | Date]

		fall in love is chemical posted on 11/05/2009 5:17 PM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	.. yes it is a chemical reaction ... there are two major hormones involved in this feeling of attachment: oxytocin and vasopressin. the sense/stage of attraction involves three main neurotransmitters: adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin. without adrenaline, dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, vasopressin and cortisol etc, you cannot fall in love ... for those who think that falling in love is more than a chemical reaction imposed by the genetic structure of a human, then they are CHALLENGING the theory of evolution of darwin. this theory states that humans evolved from molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics ... yes, for those who think that love is beyond pure genetic dna, they mean that humans/animals are not pure physically bounded. these people think that humans are beyond physicality and therefore they believe love is not written in the genes, consequently the theory of darwinian evolution would be false as per their belief .... [Reply]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/05/2009 6:19 PM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I agree that the chemistry is necessary. Probably it would be possible to design a pattern classifier that could identity love as a drive which is dependent on the chemistry you discussed. But drives are actually relationships between neuro-biology and macroscopic human behavior. Sure the chemistry is important, but we could implement similar patterns in an AI. The chemical reactions could be mathematically described and implemented in a computer program and, if embodied sufficiently, could embody the drive called 'love'. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/05/2009 7:01 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Attraction is evolutionary and biological. In fact, it is now suggested that we are attracted to others because the hormones actually produce opposite signals that tend toward diversity in sexual selection. I, for one, know the type of woman that gets me feeling good, but the woman I love is much like me, older and not so pretty as she used to be, but we'ree deeply bonded. If One of us were standing in the road and a truck bearing down on us, the other would leap in the way to save the mate. probably we'd both die fighting to save each other while the truck ran over us. Tyheree does come a point in time where it goes beyond simple evolution, but the triggering is purely evolutionary. As I pointed out in another post, I was not greatly attracted to the woman I've been with for the past twenty years, nor was she greatly attracted to me. Both of us simply went our ways, but our lives kept re-connecting. Some things evolution simply can't explain. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/05/2009 8:23 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	chemistry first, then something extra after years. if a young man asked me what in a woman is important, high on the list would be what dooj said. when the shit hits the fan i don't have to look to know she has my back and not nipping at my heels [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 3:33 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	friendship is the only truely important and valuable thing. Love is an aberrant dependecy on another persons behaviour towards you, which aside of being stupid it is dangerous AND useless. Of course, from evolutionary POV it is necessary to stay a couple for at least as long as it is necessary to raise the child until it is fit to live on its own. Love is like heroin. It gives pleasure proportional with the dependency, it is addictive. It should be avoided as much as possible IMO [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 5:10 AM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@friendship is the only truely important and valuable thing.@@ are you saying that a friendship emotion is not bounded to any chemical reaction and therefore is more important and valuable than love? if you think that friendship is more valuable than love, you are linking friendship with something beyond pure genetics... both love and friendship and other emotional states as well, are based on biochemical chain of events, none of these emotional states of mind are beyond chemistry. if you think that love or friendship is something "extra" or spiritual or mystical, then you are challenging the theory of evolution of darwin. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 6:17 AM by Virgilic	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	of course both love and friendship are genetically evolved biochemical processes. I do not believe there is anything mysterious about it. All I was saying was that love is an irrational feeling that makes one dependent on another persons behaviour towards him/her, which is completely stupid and nonsensical, while friendship is a balanced, rational, practical and extremely fulfilling feeling if prolonged over extended period of time. In fact mutual respect and empathy is much stronger in case of freindship than in case of love because love involves a greater internal conflict of the one's need of the other's attention with one's consideration of the other's whishes. All I am saying is that I AM SO FAQING SICK AND TIRED OF THE FAQING CRYSTAL PIEDESTAL ON WHICH THIS IDIOTIC SPECIES HAS PUT THIS IDIOTIC FEELING SINCE EVER no big deal [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 7:04 AM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	So it's like "love" is an anti-disorder self-medication, when really you should listen to people who are not currently suffering from your disorder, and follow their advice. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 10:15 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I've seen women I'd love to be in love with for about 30 minutes. You know, of course, that E.O. Wilson explained the sexual needs of male and female very simply. Since a woman knows that 50% f the genes are hers no matter whom she chooses, her main goal is to find a male she can trust for the needs of childcare while she is vulnerable. The male, OTOH, is never sure of whether his genes are actually part of the child he's caring for. To ensure his genes are spread, he spreads his genes in as many opportuinties as possible. Even if he's cuckolded to taking care of anothert man's child, another man is also taking care of his child. probably, marriage was invented by men, and "whores", with all its social baggage, was placed on women to ensure they remained respectably faithful to their men. OTOH, the real irony is that women will tend more to be faithful, since they don't need to sleep around to ensure their own genes' reproduction. They gwet doubly trapped by man's inventions. Double standard is biological. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 12:21 PM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OTOH, the real irony is that women will tend more to be faithful, since they don't need to sleep around to ensure their own genes' reproduction. They gwet doubly trapped by man's inventions. Double standard is biological. You make it sound like women don't have their own secret strategies. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 12:41 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Cheating" is a trade-off recognized in Sociobiology to ensure survival. A woman might see that her husband is not providing the best support for the kid, and seek out sexual favors from a more productive member of society. Any number of factors can escalate cheating. one example would be the fact that women traditionally were forced to give up their last name and therefore their identity as partr of their genetic family. In order to make this exchange, they sought to exchange their identity for somwething that guaranteed a better situation for them and the kids. This is where that damn infernal nagging comes from. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 12:44 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	BTW, I've learned from experience that when young women look at you with that "you're my hero!" look, they're not looking at you, but at what you will be when they're done working on you. This comes from the conditioning of trading their identities for soemthing of better value. Experienced men, therefore, tell them what they want to hear, get laid, and disappear, which only makes the game more treacherous for guys who are really lookig for a good wona to spend their lives with. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 12:46 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Women enter a relationship expecting their partner to change. Men enter a relationship expecting their partner to stay the same. Both are inevitably disappointed." [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: fall in love is chemical posted on 11/06/2009 12:57 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I thought I said that. [Reply] [Parent]

		falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 5:54 AM by Redakteur	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Dear maryfran, Falling in love is chemical? I take it (from the description you provide) that you are referring to only ONE ("Eros") of the several forms of "love" recognized by the Ancient Greeks: Agape (ἀγάπη agápē): ideal, "pure" love Eros (ἔρως érōs): passionate love Philia (φιλία philía): loyalty to friends, family, and community Storge (στοργή storgē): natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Xenia (ξενία xenía): felt by a host towards his guest Regards, Redakteur [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 6:13 AM by A.I.Lover	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Tell me one emotion that is not chemical in some way please. Really anything that we think and do is within our brains therefore everything is chemical at some point. But you see just saying oh look it's chemical doesn't change the fact people developed different preferences and tastes along life and they won't fall in love for the same type of person. You prefer lemon juice over orange but i like both or none or just orange. Of course that's a bad example since emotions usually are more complex and subtle then that. Just saying that feeling love is a chemical reaction doesn't really explain the whole thing. [Reply] [Parent]

		falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 6:26 AM by Redakteur	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	But you see just saying oh look it's chemical doesn't change the fact people developed different preferences and tastes along life and they won't fall in love for the same type of person. Dear A.I. Lover, Are you admonishing me? In my initial posting, I took no stance (for or against) maryfran's assertion that "falling in love is chemical." Regards, Redakteur [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 8:55 AM by A.I.Lover	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Oh sorry this was not meant to you but to the original poster. Argh... [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 9:14 AM by gawell	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	humans evolved from molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics ... [quote/] and then... into more chem reactions? so just random sampling of chems no thoughts of recipes or appetites of construction and destruction thoughts just chem reactions electrical stims light is a chem process? trans that translate or something catalytic yeah sure weights and measures my chem intake differs some from yours not by much is it enough? take a history and remember to not forget and get some help keeping track of everything you do just ingest and in jest laughter a chem reacting and yeah why not like it too. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 9:29 AM by gawell	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Catalectic Tis love's opposite shore to hate injustice for evermore with clear conscience Twas green against sky inheritance confined to cry near cloud's rain Whilst engaged in sitting spy the dead carry the living across sea's storm Whence ship's bow broken under crowded halls ghost voices spoken where wind sings Does love destroys more than hate ever could? I would agree that love does more than hate ever could. Except instead of destroys I would substitute affects. My first idea was to dispel duality. Love does not have an opposite. The perception of relativity/QM is limited by senses. Hate in the negative is mostly error, while hate in the positive (i.e. hate injustice for example is love of justice). I didn't really get there. While searching catalectic I stumbled across a riddle. Whilst I was engaged in sitting I spied the dead carrying the living What did I see? -- A ship (the vessel is made of dead wood and the people are alive). so some ships go crashing, battered on the rocks, or sunk by swells too tall, and then...some land to do their crashing, battering, sinking and taking off from the opposite shore. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 11:21 AM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@Falling in love is chemical?@@ indeed i refer to every form of love and every kind of emotional states. all these mental sensations are based on pure chemistry. all emotional manifestations are already written and defined in our genes. if we think we are discovering new emotions when coping with new situations, then we are lying ourselves, because all emotions are already coded in the dna language. if we think our emotional states are beyond physical dna and if we believe that we are able to experiment new emotions that have never existed before, then we in some way are challenging the darwin theory of evolution. if we experiment new feelings or sensations that have never before occurred to us, and we think we have been the original discovererers or precursors of such new sensations/emotions, then we are meaning that these new feelings are not coded or described previously in the dna code, and consequently we are to some extent admitting that the dna code is not sufficient to explain the complexity of the emotional world. on the other hand if all emotional stages are already fixed, defined or pre-determined genetically, then it seems that SOMEONE or SOMETHING has already anticipated to the emergence of all kind of emotional manifestations ocurring during a life. if dna genetic code is able to incorporate new emotions into its dna-chain, new emotions that had not been described/coded formerly, it means that there is something beyond pure physicality. something beyond dna ... so we have an open question: are emotions 100% chemical or not? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 11:24 AM by gawell	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	87%. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 11:26 AM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	and what about the remaining 13%? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 11:29 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	love juice.Squish. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 1:07 PM by gawell	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	choosing what chemicals go good with other chemicals. we already know that some chemicals don't always act the same way every time, the hidden variables of ignorance and information act in ways that are a matter of AND, OR, Not & COPY> there was a time when I chose to put a variety of chemicals in me as much as possible, (without over dosing or getting unreasonably toxic poisoning) they were cheap, available and plentiful, now those are not so cheap and for me anyway not so plentiful or available, but I am putting another variety of chemicals, taken straight, often raw and fresh as I can get, for convenience substitutes may be fine, we'll see how well the bodies act with 21st century preventive measures. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 9:51 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Redak, you know, of course, that all you define can be shown as manifestations of the genetic replicative algorithm, which would make them, by extension, "chemical"? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 11:14 AM by gawell	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	everything is chemical a one trick pony shot it self in the foot. and putting two chemicals together just another chemical action except for some reason the chemicals were taken apart and separated, and sometimes never got together again. maybe too far apart to remember how the act went awry. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love is chemical? posted on 11/07/2009 2:42 PM by gawell	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	or put another way... there are no chemicals without a chemist. [Reply] [Parent]

		falling in love partly "learned" posted on 11/07/2009 3:49 PM by Redakteur	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Redak, you know, of course, that all you define can be shown as manifestations of the genetic replicative algorithm, which would make them, by extension, "chemical"? Dear doojie, These emotions are not exclusively expressions of our genome, just as speaking English is not (though an affinity for speech of any kind and a readiness to acquire and use it may be largely genetic in basis), and dancing is not (though, again, we appear to have an inborn understanding of rhythm). Rather, the aforementioned emotions are in part the result of LEARNED BEHAVIOR. A mentally deficient person (e.g., an idiot), or someone raised by Martians, may still have all the genetic, biochemical, and physiological equipment to respond to pheromones and to react to oxytocin and vasopressin, but the "love" emotions he experiences will only superficially resemble the transcendent feelings of admiration and affection which listening to a symphony, or watching his flag being hoisted, or nurturing a sick person. Regards, Redakteur [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love partly "learned" posted on 11/09/2009 10:21 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Purely an assumption :) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love partly "learned" posted on 11/09/2009 11:21 AM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I like the way that the Indian dude in the Matrix *in the subway scene with Neo) puts it: "Love is just a word we use to describe a connection." The point is that people form bonds. The fact that these bonds have chemical correlates doesn't detract from the connection at all, or demean it in any way. In a class I took in cognitive behavioral therapy they had section where they took common 'cocktail' words (words that have multiple meanings/contexts, or mean something slightly different to different people) and break it down into multiple constituent parts. I learned that love (romantic) to me consists of three things: admiration, adoration, and lust. Love is a descriptor that describes bonding. The real trouble is when people start using irrational phrases like "true love", or when they assume that every time a person speaks the word 'love' it means the same thing that they mean when they speak it. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love partly "learned" posted on 11/09/2009 11:40 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Once you agree with Dawkins that humans are merely a gene's way of making another gene, then any concept of "LOVE" becomes a general manifestation of that replicative need. Agape love, for example, is a love of the highest ideal, yet it is little more than a need for the fullest expression of who/what we are. The more perfectly and "righteously" we define ourselves, the easier it is to justify our existence, even for some not so nice things. If the genes work according to an algorithm, then all forms of love are simply different sub-routines emanating from that algorithm. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love partly "learned" posted on 11/09/2009 5:13 PM by exapted	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I mostly agree with you, but what about memetics? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: falling in love partly "learned" posted on 11/10/2009 10:09 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I mostly agree with you, but what about memetics? While genes are highly specific replcators, memes tend toward a generalized patter to establish a certain goal. This is probably why linearity looks so good to our reasoning processes. Genes can handle specific choices in exact replication, but the seeking of a goal is generally directed by memes. This linearity is generally unaffected by the regular process of genetic replication, but changes in the environment produices a decision procedure which alters the linear path. Too many alterations, and the gene loses its power of exact replication. The tendency of the gene pool, therefore is to minimize change and maintain linearity. As a consequence, the minimization of decisions are reduced collectively as representative of the gene pool. The more accurately the decision procedure reflects the environment, the less likely the change, and the greater the conscious resistance to change. Everyting becomes defined as a result of genetic survival needs. [Reply] [Parent]

		I'm scared of lonely..... posted on 11/09/2009 7:49 PM by Oceans With-in-me	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I'm in this fight, and I'm swinging and my arms are getting tired It's hard, I'm trying to beat this emptiness but I'm running out of time I'm sinking in the sand, and I can barely stand I'm lost in this dream, I need you to hold me I'm scared of lonely I try to be patient, but I'm hurting deep inside And I can't keep waiting, I need comfort late at night And I can't find my way, won't you lead me home Cause I'm lost in this dream, I need you to hold me I'm scared of lonely And I'm scared of being the only shadow I see along the wall And I'm scared the only heartbeat I hear beating is my own And I'm scared of being alone I can't seem to breathe when I am lost in this dream, I need you to hold me I'm scared of lonely I'm scared of lonely..... I cry at night, 'cause my baby's too far to be by my side To wipe away these tears of mine, so I hold my pillow tight To imagine you would stretch your hand looking for mine 'Cause I'm lost in this dream , I need you to hold me I'm scared of lonely And I'm scared of being the only shadow I see along the wall And I'm scared the only heartbeat I hear beating is my own And I'm scared of being alone I can't seem to breathe when I am lost in this dream, I need you to hold me I need your strength when nobody is around 'Cause I'm tired of this emptiness, I think I'm drowning I can't be lonely no more Cause I'm lost in this dream, I need you to hold me I'm scared of lonely And I'm scared of being the only shadow I see along the wall And I'm scared the only heartbeat I hear beating is my own And I'm scared of being alone I can't seem to breathe when I am lost in this dream, I need you to hold me I'm scared of lonely I'm scared of lonely..... [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: I'm scared of lonely..... posted on 11/09/2009 10:06 PM by Phillippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Me heap scared of lonely too. [Reply] [Parent]