What's your spiritual type?

Finella,

(Like theERK said...)
Hm. Let's put it this way. Is love rational? Is self-sacrifice rational?
Click to expand...
Of course! Are you equating 'irrational' with 'unknown reasons'? I would normally use the term to mean "without reason".
 
They can be seen as very rational.
To answer these questions rationally may not please many people though.
 
Ah, since I made the claim, then I must back it up, eh? :)

But then I would love to hear how love and self-sacrifice ARE rational from you folk, then. Deal?

Love cannot be rationally assumed, it is not something you decide upon to do. One does not look at your newborn child and say, "Ah, this is my kid. I will love it because that it how I will best facilitatie its growth and nurturance." No, love comes from within, unbidden, and without regard for your rational faculties and will. When you fall in love with someone, it may be with the wrong person, and it may be that the love is not reciprocated. Why would you do such a thing, as a rational person, if you deemed it was irrational to do so? The answer is you cannot help it. Again, love arises, unbidden, from within.

Note I am not talking about lust or reproductive drives. I am talking about the ineffible desire to care for and adore another person. This can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas.

This love can move one to do acts of self-sacrifice. There is certainly nothing rational about such acts. For example, consider a situation where a 90-year-old woman falls as she is crossing a busy street. A 30-year-old computer programmer rushes into the street to stop traffic and pull her to safety, risking his own life. Rationally, his life is more beneficial to society; he may have a family at home to support and protect. The 90-year-old woman, however, is a drain on resources. She may be demented, even, and not capableof imparting any wisdom or insight to the younger generation. Does the 30-year-old stop and rationally decide that his life is worth risking for this woman? No. He has no time. He does it out of love, out of an impulse, for other human beings. He does it selflessly, and possibly to the loss of society.
 
"Ah, since I made the claim, then I must back it up, eh? "

You sure are entering the realm of rational thought,he,he.
I´ll have to give you props for that.


"Love cannot be rationally assumed, it is not something you decide upon to do. One does not look at your newborn child and say, "Ah, this is my kid. I will love it because that it how I will best facilitatie its growth and nurturance." No, love comes from within, "

Hmmm.
As I did say,this kind of an interpretation may be offending to some but I´ll try to express it as clearly as possible.
Our understanding may differ but sticking to words,I agree such a response can come from within.
A dog,having given birth to her puppies,probably does not think "ah,this/these are my kid(s).I better take good care of them until they can do on their own".
Yet she knows exactly what to do,this we call "maternal instincts".As far as I understand,mammals share the "program" of maternal instincts to some degree at least (my interpretation is that with mammals,may it be hominidae or canine,do share certain parts of brain called "mammalian" and "limbic" system)
"Lower" animals which basically refers to non-mammals of reptiles,amphibians and related species do have more primitive brains than mammals,this is considered a rule (they are without mechanisms like those)
When it comes to "within" (what could imo more correctly be termed "unconcious" in this case) we could posit that this kind of action rises from there.
It is very rational for our dog to take care of her pups,after all she "knows" (I´ll be adding "" since I honestly do not know how dogs think) that they´re there for a reason.She is being "told" to take care of them.She realizes they are of her blood and most importantly,genes.Under her care,they will develop and one day after reaching fertility,be able to pass on their own offspring (ultimately,their offspring stems from their parents whose genes they will carry in a manner or another)
Again I state,may it be hominidae or canine...
As an additional note to push my point,I shall add that there is considerable evidence between differing treatment,from loving to highly dangerous,between BIOlogical mothers and non-biological/stepmothers.


"Note I am not talking about lust or reproductive drives. I am talking about the ineffible desire to care for and adore another person. This can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas."

Cooperation works.
We may be dealing with altruism.
 
Finella said:
Ah, since I made the claim, then I must back it up, eh? :)

Love cannot be rationally assumed, it is not something you decide upon to do. One does not look at your newborn child and say, "Ah, this is my kid. I will love it because that it how I will best facilitatie its growth and nurturance." No, love comes from within, unbidden, and without regard for your rational faculties and will.
Click to expand...

One does not think "Ah, my eyes hurt. I think I'll blink to apply some moisture." No, blinking comes from within, unbidden, and without regard for your rational faculties and will.

Love is like an instinct. You are correct in stating that loving someone is not always rational. The human brain is sloppy. For example, we have some sort of process which helps us to recognize faces everywhere we go, but this results in seeing faces when there are none. Similarly, we have the instinct to love people, particularly our children becuase it's a survival advantage, and not surprisingly, sometimes our love is applied in the wrong places.

Finella said:
When you fall in love with someone, it may be with the wrong person, and it may be that the love is not reciprocated. Why would you do such a thing, as a rational person, if you deemed it was irrational to do so? The answer is you cannot help it. Again, love arises, unbidden, from within.
Click to expand...

Basically, all you're saying is that humans do random things, sometimes stupidly so. This is not at all surprising, because, once again, we aren't perfect in any way.

Finella said:
Note I am not talking about lust or reproductive drives. I am
talking about the ineffible desire to care for and adore another person. This can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas.
Click to expand...

That may not be what you're talking about, but there's essentially no difference between them. They're just different emotions that occur for different reasons.

Finella said:
This love can move one to do acts of self-sacrifice. There is certainly nothing rational about such acts. For example, consider a situation where a 90-year-old woman falls as she is crossing a busy street. A 30-year-old computer programmer rushes into the street to stop traffic and pull her to safety, risking his own life. Rationally, his life is more beneficial to society; he may have a family at home to support and protect. The 90-year-old woman, however, is a drain on resources. She may be demented, even, and not capableof imparting any wisdom or insight to the younger generation. Does the 30-year-old stop and rationally decide that his life is worth risking for this woman? No. He has no time. He does it out of love, out of an impulse, for other human beings. He does it selflessly, and possibly to the loss of society.
Click to expand...

In some cases, indeed, there is nothing rational about such acts--like in your example. However, there's nothing mysterious or romantic about what you're saying. In most cases, these acts of sacrifice ARE beneficial to society. In other words, altruism is a survival advantage to the species as a whole (an aspect of evolution that many people overlook). Yet, once again, the methods of the brain are sloppy, and our instincts will force us to apply such altruism to situations where they don't help anything--like your example.
 
Finella,

But then I would love to hear how love and self-sacrifice ARE rational from you folk, then
Click to expand...
Forgive the rather 'nasty' tone of this example. You want some 'evidence' that love is rational? Imagine for a moment that you have just discovered that your husband has been raping your own daughter, repeatedly, for years. Are you trying to tell me that your feelings for him would be unaffected by this sudden revelation? The point of this - a simple example of how 'love' is clearly affected by rational thought. Proof that love is entirely rational? No - that's more complicated to demonstrate, but no less true just because it requires more depth!
 
I'm afraid, Loki, that your crass example has hit a little close to home -- and not literally, but in the sense that a loved one has done quite terrible things (and not of the magnitude you describe, but terrible enough) and yet I am in the process of realizing that yes, I do love this person despite all of this. Why? Because I understand this person, deep inside. Love and empathy are very closely related.

Another example: a rational thing for a person to do in your situation would be to chop the husband's testicles into tiny little pieces. Yet you still see women in such situations loving their husbands -- to their own perplexity and confusion -- and remaining in the relationship. I'm not saying this is right, and I'm not saying it's healthy. But again, it demonstrates that love is not rational.

Love may be affected by rational thought, but that doesn't make it rational.
 
TheERK said:


One does not think "Ah, my eyes hurt. I think I'll blink to apply some moisture." No, blinking comes from within, unbidden, and without regard for your rational faculties and will.

Love is like an instinct. You are correct in stating that loving someone is not always rational. The human brain is sloppy. For example, we have some sort of process which helps us to recognize faces everywhere we go, but this results in seeing faces when there are none. Similarly, we have the instinct to love people, particularly our children becuase it's a survival advantage, and not surprisingly, sometimes our love is applied in the wrong places.



Basically, all you're saying is that humans do random things, sometimes stupidly so. This is not at all surprising, because, once again, we aren't perfect in any way.



That may not be what you're talking about, but there's essentially no difference between them. They're just different emotions that occur for different reasons.



In some cases, indeed, there is nothing rational about such acts--like in your example. However, there's nothing mysterious or romantic about what you're saying. In most cases, these acts of sacrifice ARE beneficial to society. In other words, altruism is a survival advantage to the species as a whole (an aspect of evolution that many people overlook). Yet, once again, the methods of the brain are sloppy, and our instincts will force us to apply such altruism to situations where they don't help anything--like your example.
Click to expand...

So if I understand you, then, you're saying that because our brains are "sloppy" they make "irrational" commands, and therefore love seems "irrational" when really it is "rational," we're just mistaking it for something more mysterious.

Oooookay.

"You are correct in stating that loving someone is not always rational. "

Isn't that what I was saying?
 
What's Your Spiritual Type?

You scored 34, on a scale of 25 to 100.

Some of the questions just pissed me off with the lack of choices.

Seems like most of the people I have learned most from are agnostic or atheist, but uphold the behaviors most desired by the religious machines.
 
Finella,

I'm afraid, Loki, that your crass example has hit a little close to home
Click to expand...
Apologies for the crassness - I thought about trying for a different analogy, but it seemed "the best" (on short notice) to make the point. Sorry for 'lowering the tone'!

... yet I am in the process of realizing that yes, I do love this person despite all of this
Click to expand...
You missed my point (perhaps?). I didn't intend to say that such an event *must* force you stop loving someone - but rather, it exposes that *there is a process* that humans go through. You use the exact words here! "Love" is a process that you go through, and it is driven by rational thought. You may come to a point where you "love...despite all of this", and someone else will not. The difference is in your experiences, and how you reason through your needs and desires.

And sorry again that this conversation took on a "personal edge" for you. I'm more than happy to change the subject, or just drop it!
 
Darwin said:
You sure are entering the realm of rational thought,he,he.
I´ll have to give you props for that.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize I had yet to "enter the realm," as it t'were...

Hmmm.
As I did say,this kind of an interpretation may be offending to some but I´ll try to express it as clearly as possible.
Our understanding may differ but sticking to words,I agree such a response can come from within.
A dog,having given birth to her puppies,probably does not think "ah,this/these are my kid(s).I better take good care of them until they can do on their own".
Yet she knows exactly what to do,this we call "maternal instincts".As far as I understand,mammals share the "program" of maternal instincts to some degree at least (my interpretation is that with mammals,may it be hominidae or canine,do share certain parts of brain called "mammalian" and "limbic" system)
"Lower" animals which basically refers to non-mammals of reptiles,amphibians and related species do have more primitive brains than mammals,this is considered a rule (they are without mechanisms like those)
When it comes to "within" (what could imo more correctly be termed "unconcious" in this case) we could posit that this kind of action rises from there.
It is very rational for our dog to take care of her pups,after all she "knows" (I´ll be adding "" since I honestly do not know how dogs think) that they´re there for a reason.She is being "told" to take care of them.She realizes they are of her blood and most importantly,genes.Under her care,they will develop and one day after reaching fertility,be able to pass on their own offspring (ultimately,their offspring stems from their parents whose genes they will carry in a manner or another)
Again I state,may it be hominidae or canine...
As an additional note to push my point,I shall add that there is considerable evidence between differing treatment,from loving to highly dangerous,between BIOlogical mothers and non-biological/stepmothers.
Click to expand...

You have dealt with the lovely familial relationship, but you have not dealt with loving relationships outside of this situation, which, as I said, "can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas." Are you attributing the loving long friendship of two straight men in their 60s to maternal instinct? What about if a woman you love goes off and sleeps with three other guys, and you find yourself still loving her? We find ourselves in situations all the time loving people where there is no biological call to do so.

Cooperation works.
Click to expand...
Say that to the computer guy's boss who was expecting a presentation the following day. :P
We may be dealing with altruism.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find in dictionary.com that altruism and selflessness are synonyms. Yes, we are dealing with altruism.
 
Loki said:
Finella,


Apologies for the crassness - I thought about trying for a different analogy, but it seemed "the best" (on short notice) to make the point. Sorry for 'lowering the tone'!
Click to expand...
apology accepted... you didn't know, of course!

You missed my point (perhaps?). I didn't intend to say that such an event *must* force you stop loving someone - but rather, it exposes that *there is a process* that humans go through. You use the exact words here! "Love" is a process that you go through, and it is driven by rational thought. You may come to a point where you "love...despite all of this", and someone else will not. The difference is in your experiences, and how you reason through your needs and desires.
Click to expand...

And I think you missed my point as well. I am in the process of discovering that I still love this person in spite of the very rational reasons that I should not. There is no reason involved at all. It is uncovering the feeling that I have and realizing that I have it.
 
Finella,

Okay, let me try to provide some solid information on the "love is rational" claim. The basic principle is shown here :
The latest scientific findings indicate that emotions play an essential role in decision making, ... they influence the very mechanisms of rational thinking.
...
we must give computers the ability to recognize, understand, even to have and express emotions.

Part 2 discusses ... recent and ongoing efforts to build models of emotion for synthesizing emotions in computers...
Click to expand...

And also here :

(Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker deconstructs the great myths about how the mind works.)
Pinker: Neuroscience is showing that all aspects of mental life -- every emotion, every thought pattern, every memory -- can be tied to the physiological activity or structure of the brain. Cognitive science has shown that feats that were formerly thought to be doable by mental stuff alone can be duplicated by machines, that motives and goals can be understood in terms of feedback and cybernetic mechanisms, and that thinking can be understood as a kind of computation.
Click to expand...

That's the overview, in a nutshell. The details are contained in two separate topics. First, at the conscious level emotions are a key part of how we 'think'. This, I think (!!), is what you mean by 'love' being 'irrational' - it appears to be a 'cause', not an effect. This is not being disputed - in fact, it's a point we'd agree on (depending upon how we wish to word it!).

From Emotion and the function of consciousness
Research from psychology further supports the view that emotions are necessary to rationality while suggesting that emotion can function independently of the traditional categories of cognition. The mere exposure effect shows that subjects can show affective responses to stimuli shown to them for a period of time too brief for conscious recognition to occur.
...
the quintessential popular case of qualitative experience seems to be felt emotion. Along with perceptual experiences -- if not instead of them -- emotions are primary qualitative experiences. The qualitative dimension of emotions, coupled with the necessary role of emotions in rationality, is best explained by taking the qualitative experience of emotions as motivations.
Click to expand...

But you'd agree (I hope) that emotions change over time. You love someone, that love can 'grow' or it can 'die'. What causes 'change' in emotions? Basic brain activity at the 'non-conscious' level, based upon memory (experience), etc.

from Mandler George: MIND AND BODY (Norton, 1984)
Emotions are constructed out of autonomic arousal (arousal of a part of the nervous system called autonomic nervous system, which determines the intensity of the emotion) and evaluative cognition (meaning analysis, which determines the quality of the emotion).
Click to expand...

And for more information that you or I can probably understand ( sorry to project my limitations onto you !!!) :

From Emotional Circuits and Computational Neuroscience
The disparate theories of emotional experience thus
all point to a common mechanism—an evaluative system
that determines whether a given situation is potentially
harmful or beneficial to the individual.
...
The amygdala therefore serves as an experimentally accessible
entry point into the distributed network of brain regions
that mediate complex emotional evaluations.
Click to expand...

From The Neuromodulatory Basis of Emotion
The neural basis of emotion can be found in both the neural computation and the neuromodulation of the neural substrate mediating behavior. I review the experimental evidence showing the involvement of the hypothalamus, the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex in emotion.
...
Rooting the emotional state in neuromodulatory phenomena allows for its quantitative and scientific study and possibly its characterization.
Click to expand...

There's plenty more if you want to spend some time reading....
 
Thank you, Loki, for your time spent posting this... I regret my brain is in need of some rest, so I can't rationally reply to you tonight. :)

At a glance, the theory sounds quite reasonable, but that is if you ascibe to only one theory. Perhaps tomorrow we can get into some other forms of psychology. ::rubs hands together in anticipation::

Good night (for me)!
 
Finella,

We cross-posted!! Just quickly...

I am in the process of discovering that I still love this person in spite of the very rational reasons that I should not. There is no reason involved at all.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that there *is* reason involved, but if I want to try and "work through" the "feeling" to expose the underlying reasons then I'd need to get far more involved in your situation that either you or I probably want! So, I guess we'll have to leave it as "I say, you say..." Can I just add that I think "love" is a high level concept composed of many different 'sub-emptions' (to invent some terminology) like 'sympathy', 'guilt', 'need', 'empathy', 'lust', 'fear', etc. The feeling you ahve that you love is "irrational' is simply (IMHO) the result of you rejecting some rational objections in favour of a cocktail of these 'sub-emotions' - all of them (ultimately) understandable/explainable with sufficient effort. The "intensity" of the emotion is explained in some of the links of my previous post.
 
"You have dealt with the lovely familial relationship, but you have not dealt with loving relationships outside of this situation, which, as I said, "can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas." Are you attributing the loving long friendship of two straight men in their 60s to maternal instinct? What about if a woman you love goes off and sleeps with three other guys, and you find yourself still loving her? We find ourselves in situations all the time loving people where there is no biological call to do so."

I think there always is a biological call of some sort involved,but certainly I´m not trying to narrow it all into the same model.
I did only try to handle a part of this phenomena.

"I think you'll find in dictionary.com that altruism and selflessness are synonyms. Yes, we are dealing with altruism."

Y´yes.
But it is not all black and white.
 
Finella said:


So if I understand you, then, you're saying that because our brains are "sloppy" they make "irrational" commands, and therefore love seems "irrational" when really it is "rational," we're just mistaking it for something more mysterious.

Oooookay.

"You are correct in stating that loving someone is not always rational. "

Isn't that what I was saying?
Click to expand...

I hate to play the word game here, but it depends on what you mean by rational. If you meant the kind of rational that concerns 'the best decision I could make', then I can agree that love isn't always rational, and the same goes for many other cognitive processes, such as seeing faces in a block of marble. If you meant rational as in 'being able to understand why it happened', then I must disagree that love is not rational. My bit about the 'sloppy' brain explains how I view the cause of the emotions you're talking about.

In other words, even though it isn't the best decisions our brains can make rationally, our brains make that decision regardless, because of the way they are structured.

I hope this makes sense.

Eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom