• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is love a thing?

JoeBentley said:
Wait here I got it.

Love is this mystical thing that will forever be outside the realm of your precious cold, heartless science. Love can only be understood when you open your mind to the duality of the qualia of observer out beyond the event horizon of the formless of the mystical mystery of mysterical mysteriousness.

There is that better?
Click to expand...

Well crap. I can't understand this, I'm not smart enough to be in love :bwall
 
JoeBentley said:
Wait here I got it.

Love is this mystical thing that will forever be outside the realm of your precious cold, heartless science. Love can only be understood when you open your mind to the duality of the qualia of observer out beyond the event horizon of the formless of the mystical mystery of mysterical mysteriousness.

There is that better?
Click to expand...
You captured the idea why my post is apparently still ahead of its time. :thumbsup:
 
JoeBentley said:
Wait here I got it.

Love is this mystical thing that will forever be outside the realm of your precious cold, heartless science. Love can only be understood when you open your mind to the duality of the qualia of observer out beyond the event horizon of the formless of the mystical mystery of mysterical mysteriousness.

There is that better?
Click to expand...

No, I certainly said nothing like that.

But SG's comment that "love is genetically based" is both unclear and unevidenced. What does it mean to say that it is genetically based? In what sense?
 
phiwum said:
No, I certainly said nothing like that.

But SG's comment that "love is genetically based" is both unclear and unevidenced. What does it mean to say that it is genetically based? In what sense?
Click to expand...
It's not unevidenced. The biology of bonding, sexual attraction, and love beyond lust is an advanced science and just because you are unfamiliar with it and I don't want to post citations for a college years worth of data doesn't make it unevidenced.

What do you mean, what makes it genetically based? You think it's pixie dust sprinkled by flying cupids?

Do you recognize that maternal infant bonding is genetic? Yes there is a nature nurture component and sometimes the mechanism fails.

Paternal child bonding is more dependent on interaction with the infant given the father didn't experience the hormones in pregnancy and breastfeeding. But similar biochemical events occur.

And just like other species who are various forms of gregarious or not, monogamous or not, all those differences if they didn't have a genetic basis what do you think is happening? Lions just coincidentally have harems, they could just as easily form lifelong bonds?

Think human love is magically different from animal bonding because we named it?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's not unevidenced. The biology of bonding, sexual attraction, and love beyond lust is an advanced science and just because you are unfamiliar with it and I don't want to post citations for a college years worth of data doesn't make it unevidenced.
Click to expand...

I meant uncited.

What do you mean, what makes it genetically based? You think it's pixie dust sprinkled by flying cupids?
Click to expand...

I asked what it means. Surely, expressions and meanings of love vary from culture to culture, so while I'm sure there is a genetic basis for feelings of caring, etc., it seems unlikely that what we call love is purely genetic.

Of course, I could be wrong, but you haven't provided any explanation or citations.

Do you recognize that maternal infant bonding is genetic? Yes there is a nature nurture component and sometimes the mechanism fails.

Paternal child bonding is more dependent on interaction with the infant given the father didn't experience the hormones in pregnancy and breastfeeding. But similar biochemical events occur.

And just like other species who are various forms of gregarious or not, monogamous or not, all those differences if they didn't have a genetic basis what do you think is happening? Lions just coincidentally have harems, they could just as easily form lifelong bonds?

Think human love is magically different from animal bonding because we named it?
Click to expand...

Never said any such thing, did I? Have I called it magical?

Not every human behavior is genetic in nature, of course. And here, you say that nurture plays a role in love. Fair enough, and so there isn't a simple answer to the question of whether love is genetic or not. Surely, some caring is learned, and some has a genetic basis.
 
Okay so I'm reading there is a genetic/biochemistry component, and there's a cultural component, and there a component that's chance. Does this sound right?

So question: what about with the phenomenon of online dating? It is possible for two individuals to fall in love and have deep feelings for each other without being in actual physical proximity very often. The deep connection may be there before a physical meeting. So there's no pheromones, for instance. (I know from personal experience the feeling can be just as deep with an online relationship as with an off line one). So how does that work? Does this change the explanation?
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
... Surely, expressions and meanings of love vary from culture to culture, so while I'm sure there is a genetic basis for feelings of caring, etc., it seems unlikely that what we call love is purely genetic.
Click to expand...
Which is a completely different question from "what is love".

phiwum said:
...Never said any such thing, did I? Have I called it magical?
Click to expand...
No my point is, if one is going to say it's not biology, one has to have another hypothesis.

phiwum said:
...Not every human behavior is genetic in nature, of course.
Click to expand...
Again, a different question.

phiwum said:
... And here, you say that nurture plays a role in love. Fair enough, and so there isn't a simple answer to the question of whether love is genetic or not. Surely, some caring is learned, and some has a genetic basis.
Click to expand...
How does influence and modification change the biological nature of what love is?
 
RogueKitten said:
Okay so I'm reading there is a genetic/biochemistry component, and there's a cultural component, and there a component that's chance. Does this sound right?

So question: what about with the phenomenon of online dating? It is possible for two individuals to fall in love and have deep feelings for each other without being in actual physical proximity very often. The deep connection may be there before a physical meeting. So there's no pheromones, for instance. (I know from personal experience the feeling can be just as deep with an online relationship as with an off line one). So how does that work? Does this change the explanation?
Click to expand...
Not all forms of love have a sexual attraction/interaction component. So people can bond before meeting in person. Many cultures arrange marriages and in those cases love has to develop after the marriage rather than before.

Pheromones are only one aspect in of bonding. Just like hormones are only one aspect of a mother/child bond.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Which is a completely different question from "what is love".

No my point is, if one is going to say it's not biology, one has to have another hypothesis.

Again, a different question.

How does influence and modification change the biological nature of what love is?
Click to expand...

I have not said that love isn't biological or genetic, at least in part. What I did say is that your three sentence "thread-ending" post was rather unpersuasive.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not all forms of love have a sexual attraction/interaction component. So people can bond before meeting in person. Many cultures arrange marriages and in those cases love has to develop after the marriage rather than before.

Pheromones are only one aspect in of bonding. Just like hormones are only one aspect of a mother/child bond.
Click to expand...

But what about when there is sexual attraction with an online relationship? It's pretty common.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not all forms of love have a sexual attraction/interaction component. So people can bond before meeting in person. Many cultures arrange marriages and in those cases love has to develop after the marriage rather than before.

Pheromones are only one aspect in of bonding. Just like hormones are only one aspect of a mother/child bond.
Click to expand...
It's almost as if to the marriage of true minds we should not admit impediments...or something.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's not unevidenced. The biology of bonding, sexual attraction, and love beyond lust is an advanced science and just because you are unfamiliar with it and I don't want to post citations for a college years worth of data doesn't make it unevidenced.
Click to expand...


Typical skeptic garbage. Post your citations. Show me this mythical science that has acquired the capacity to explicitly and definitively empirically adjudicate the condition known as ‘love’.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom