Feelings such as, fear, anger, sad can and have been tested and measured. This is a response that the body will produce to certain stimuli. The term “love” is a human concept that encompasses many different feelings such as caring, self sacrifice, happy and so forth. If I went and rescued some baby falling out of the window does that mean I love that child or know that it is in danger and needs help?
Originally posted by ThePittman
Feelings such as, fear, anger, sad can and have been tested and measured.
Love has been measured as well....ask Xmarksthespot lol 😆
He just made an entire argument based on it.
Originally posted by ThePittman
This is a response that the body will produce to certain stimuli.
Umm....ever hear of an erection? Ever hear of adrenaline rush ? Ever hear of "butterflies in the stomach" ?
Originally posted by ThePittman
The term “love” is a human concept that encompasses many different feelings such as caring, self sacrifice, happy and so forth. If I went and rescued some baby falling out of the window does that mean I love that child or know that it is in danger and needs help?
If you saved the child, it can mean either or.
You didn't answer my question....Do you love your mother?
And thanks for ignoring all the other points I made 🙄
Please don't do a JIA ...... ❌
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Define Self Preservation.I will respond according to your own definition...keep in mind.....self preservation is more than just an instinct. It is a desire, an ideal, an influence.
Self Preservation would be surviving. i.e. Running out of a house on fire, taking cover when under gunfire, hacking off your own hand to free yourself from a death trap (real scenario) etc.
Self preservation may be more than instinct in humans, but it is still instinct. In general, people will do what it takes to stay alive in a life threatening situation.
But in respect to animals (the lioness), self preservation would be instinct and in respect to your scenario, it could very well be possible that her 'protect the offspring' instinct was much greater than her self preservation instinct and that is why she stayed and fought to the death instead of fleeing for her life.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenNeurotransmitter and endocrine functions shape and underlie all emotion and cognition, under which the collection of emotions one ascribes to lust, attraction and attachment i.e. love fall.
❌ That would be [b]infatuation.A probable form of Love, but not the only kind of Love that exists.
1) If neurotransmitter and hormone levels determine the creation of "love" then what creates "hate" ? What chemicals in us create bigotry, disgust, and the various forms of prejudice?
2) Can you explain the chemical cause of love that occurs between mother and child? What about the lack of love between mother and child?
3) What about favoritism between a mother and one child over another child?
4) What about loving one person, and not loving another?
5) What about when a mother only loves her husband but hates her children? What about when she only loves her children, but hates her father? What about when she hates everyone in her family, except her nephew?
6) What about when a person loves one pet, but is disgusted by another?
7) What chemical reaction is responsible for racism ?
You attempted to explain Love through physical scientific means....so now I expect you to finish what you started. If you do not, I will disregard your assertion entirely. [/B]
You attempt to assert love is a purely intangible "quantity", when there is proof positive of a rudimentary physical basis for emotion, cognition and personality. Perhaps you should provide proof of your intangible love force.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenThe rat model is a commonly used experimental model in biomedical research. Similar findings have also been reported in the sheep model. Funnily enough researchers don't tend to use the lion model.
So you are comparing a Lioness to a rat ? Sounds logical to me 🙄A creature of massive intelligence to a creature of pathetically low intelligence. As if thier love capacities are the same....hey, perhaps they are..who knows.
So what causes these chemical differences ? Is a lioness any less "loving" because she is not maternally aggressive? How do we know that a lioness who allows her children to be killed, didn't back out of fear and isn't in total devestation over the death of her kin?
During the Holocaust, many Jews watched as thier children, parents, siblings, etc. were slaughtered.....many of them did not fight. Does that mean they love thier family any less?
Did you consider the possibility that WEAKNESS (physical or mental) was a factor in a lioness or human's decision to put thier life before the life of thier loved one ?
You ask baseless and leading hypothetical strawman questions. Did I say oxytocin was the be all and end all of maternal behaviour? Complicated neuroendocrine interaction is involved in cognitive behaviour.
I'm sure a few hours of Animal Planet have made you an expert on lion behaviour but aside from a massive hysterical response to everyone who posts an opinion differential to yours do you have anything to offer?
Originally posted by Lord UrizenAs for my definition of love yes I do love my mother.
If you saved the child, it can mean either or.You didn't answer my question....Do you love your mother?
And thanks for ignoring all the other points I made 🙄
Please don't do a JIA ...... ❌
As for your other post I didn’t see many of them as questions but more of your statement of fact. As for many of my answers one I have studied animal behavior in school, TV, internet and also married to a vet student whos passion is animals and animal behavior. I also grew up in Alaska and surrounded by wild life and used to go camping and animal watching all the time.
As for them being out of the norm in behavior they are, if they weren’t then it wouldn’t be news and you would be studying about them when learning animal behavior.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Neurotransmitter and endocrine functions shape and underlie all emotion and cognition, under which the collection of emotions one ascribes to lust, attraction and attachment i.e. love fall.
You are arguing that Love , like every other mental existance, has a physical root.....I take it you are a Materialist?
Nothing wrong with your assertion, but ultamately, regardless of Love's possible physical existance, you are still arguing that IT EXISTS.
Am I right or wrong ?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BYou attempt to assert love is a purely intangible "quantity", when there is proof positive of a rudimentary physical basis for emotion, cognition and personality. Perhaps you should provide proof of your intangible love force.[/B]
I assert Love as not explainable by language, logic, science, religion, or any human construct available. Therefore, I have no proof. Only argument.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BThe rat model is a commonly used experimental model in biomedical research. Similar findings have also been reported in the sheep model. Funnily enough researchers don't tend to use the lion model.[/B]
😆
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BYou ask baseless and leading hypothetical strawman questions. Did I say oxytocin was the be all and end all of maternal behaviour? Complicated neuroendocrine interaction is involved in cognitive behaviour.[/B]
How are my questions baseless? You attempt to simplify Love as chemical existance, I asked you to explain in detail each of those scenarios.
Instead of giving me a complete answer, you give me a summation of your previous point....
You seem very knowledgable in the scientific field, so I assumed you would have no problem answering those questions. Why put them down as "baseless" when they are sincere, and thier answers could result in further enlightenment on the matter?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BI'm sure a few hours of Animal Planet have made you an expert on lion behaviour but aside from a massive hysterical response to everyone who posts an opinion differential to yours do you have anything to offer? [/B]
I am no expert on Lion behavior. I have made the assertion that Love exists in human and animal alike, based on a LOT of difference experiences, references, etc.
Hysterical Response...please....I have much to offer in a debate. Why not just debate me instead of trying to belittle my arguments with petty insults, huh ? It makes you seem arrogant...
Originally posted by ThePittman
As for my definition of love yes I do love my mother.
1) What is your definition of Love ?
2) The love you feel for her...did you invent it ? Or do you base your definition on what already exists between you too ?
Originally posted by ThePittman
As for them being out of the norm in behavior they are, if they weren’t then it wouldn’t be news and you would be studying about them when learning animal behavior.
As time goes by we learn more and more about animals and human beings alike. Long ago, people were unaware that animals could be homosexual.....this has already been proven, but many people are UNAWARE of that fact due to poor distribution of the evidense.
Thereby, it surprises me not that these "abnormal" occurences are not shown more often and are treated as "abnormal" since we really do not know what goes on in the mind of animals, let alone other human beings.
You can study animal behavior all you want, you will still never truly know what goes on in thier minds....
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI base my opinions of phenomena on the tangible correlates with sufficient evidence for causation. Call it what you will.
You are arguing that Love , like every other mental existance, has a physical root.....I take it you are a Materialist?
Originally posted by Lord UrizenLove, in the manner you assert it, has no reproducible evidences supporting it. The concept/term of "love" which humans ascribe to the emotions they feel has roots in the physical.
Nothing wrong with your assertion, but ultamately, regardless of Love's possible physical existance, you are still arguing that [b]IT EXISTS.Am I right or wrong ? [/B]
Originally posted by Lord UrizenAn argument of personal belief without evidence is worthless and logically fallacious. You're critical of those responses put forward by others, while at the same time admitting that your view is objectively evidenceless. You approach those with arguments with basis trying to find flaw as if it negates evidence for that basis, while at the same time holding a position (that others can not really question as all it's) based on (is) personal belief. Which is really no different than what creationists/intelligent design "theor"ists attempt with evolution.
I assert Love as not explainable by language, logic, science, religion, or any human construct available. Therefore, I have no proof. Only argument.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but animal models are used for the study of many aspects of human cognition and physiology.
😆
Originally posted by Lord UrizenHuman neurochemical interactions, simple? I made a statement expressing opinion for a physical basis for the emotions that fall under "love".
How are my questions baseless? You attempt to simplify Love as chemical existance, I asked you to explain in detail each of those scenarios.Instead of giving me a complete answer, you give me a summation of your previous point....
Your questions are essentially attempts at creating hypothetical anecdotal evidence. You approach this with the god of gaps philosophy, e.g. if one cannot provide a definitive singular physical reason for racism, then your baseless "theory of love" must be correct.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenFor one thing if you claim to have sincere motive, then perhaps you should ask less fatuous questions. For another I read literature beyond my field when I have time but I'm not a reproductive biologist, endocrinologist or cognitive neuroscientist. My field of research is neurodegenerative/neurological disorder.
You seem very knowledgable in the scientific field, so I assumed you would have no problem answering those questions. Why put them down as "baseless" when they are sincere, and thier answers could result in further enlightenment on the matter?
Originally posted by Lord UrizenAnecdotal evidence.
I am no expert on Lion behavior. I have made the assertion that Love exists in human and animal alike, based on a LOT of difference experiences, references, etc.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI see hysterical. I call it hysterical. I've seen you 'debate', all you tend to do is ask leading questions, cf this thread with the section of the abortion thread regarding pain perception in the prenatal fetus.
Hysterical Response...please....I have much to offer in a debate. Why not just debate me instead of trying to belittle my arguments with petty insults, huh ? It makes you seem arrogant...
Hey guys, just for reference, saying things like "You're ignorance is astounding" doesn't exactly improve whatever situation you're adressing, and is probably equally as rude as the comments it is responding to.
This forum has, uncharacteristically, come up in the reports a bunch recently. I'd advise anyone who has had discipline run-ins (you know who you are) to calm the hell down and keep your comments respectful. Because this isn't my forum, but I hate to see it devolve like this.
And the recent discussion might not concern this directly, but I didn't know where else to say this.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I base my opinions of phenomena on the tangible correlates with sufficient evidence for causation. Call it what you will.
Nothing wrong with that 🙂
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BLove, in the manner you assert it, has no reproducible evidences supporting it. The concept/term of "love" which humans ascribe to the emotions they feel has roots in the physical.[/B]
But it has evidence nonetheless. Just because something cannot be proven does not mean it doesn't exist.
I beleive that everything, mental, emotional, and physical is all related.
I beleive everything you say, except one thing: That Love is purely physical....your logic is so materialistically biased, you have not considered the obvious:
All you can SEE is the physical....physicality is the ONLY PROOF you can EVER FIND because our senses are not advanced enough to fully grasp or recognize the mental or emotional existances.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BAn argument of personal belief without evidence is worthless and logically fallacious. You're critical of those responses put forward by others, while at the same time admitting that your view is objectively evidenceless. [/B]
So would you argue that what Buddha taught is worthless? He seemed to have made a significant and meaningful impact on mankind in my opinion.
Would you argue that thought or opinion of any kind is worthless? Is curiosity, questioning, or rationalizing also worthless ?
I guess that means Literature is worthless as well, as are feelings, as are our desires as human beings.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BYou approach those with arguments with basis trying to find flaw as if it negates evidence for that basis, while at the same time holding a position (that others can not really question as all it's) based on (is) personal belief. Which is really no different than what creationists/intelligent design "theor"ists attempt with evolution.[/B]
I have found flaws for which no one has answered, not even you ❌
Evolution has an astounding amount of evidense to support it. You have evidense to relate the phenomena or "thoery" of love to the physical, but because we physically dependent beings, you will never find proof of the mental or emotional (or even spiritual) truth behind Love.
The fact that you will never see that, does not render it non existant
Geez...for such an intelligent person, you are SO LIMITTED...
What amazes me about your hardcore scientists is how you TRULY BELIEVE that you can discover the absolute and final truth behind ALL things 😆
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BI'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but animal models are used for the study of many aspects of human cognition and physiology.
Human neurochemical interactions, simple? I made a statement expressing opinion for a physical basis for the emotions that fall under "love".[/B]
I was laughing because I know we wouldn't dare do these tests on lions....we as human beings are generally cowards and will only perform such tests on animals who can do us no harm.
We think we are that much better.... 🙄
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BYour questions are essentially attempts at creating hypothetical anecdotal evidence. You approach this with the god of gaps philosophy, e.g. if one cannot provide a definitive singular physical reason for racism, then your baseless "theory of love" must be correct.[/B]
My "theory of love" is not baseless simply because I am not relying on a PHYSICAL MEANS....
I bet you think you can PROVE that God, or some superior guiding force doesn't exist. How foolish....
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For one thing if you claim to have sincere motive, then perhaps you should ask less fatuous questions. For another I read literature beyond my field when I have time but I'm not a reproductive biologist, endocrinologist or cognitive neuroscientist. My field of research is neurodegenerative/neurological disorder.
Anecdotal evidence.
Yet for someone so knowledgable in one field, you sorely lack knowledge in another.....
You do not know everything...you cannot know everything. OFCOURSE LOVE and ALL MENTAL/EMOTIONAL existances are going to have a PHYSICAL ASPECT...
BUT TO CLAIM THAT THE PHYSICAL IS THE ROOT WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER TESTED OR SEEN THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL, IS FOOLISH.....
YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE PHYSICAL...YOU, WITH ALL YOUR FANCY SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE/SMELL/TOUCH WHAT LIES BEYOND THE PHYSICAL REALM.
You are a FOOL for not realizing that....for thinking that the physical is ALL that EXISTS because it's all you can SEE
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BI see hysterical. I call it hysterical. I've seen you 'debate', all you tend to do is ask leading questions, cf this thread with the section of the abortion thread regarding pain perception in the prenatal fetus. [/B]
Your closemindedness despite you being a scientist is more hysterical than my curiosities and reasoning could ever be.
And as for the Abortion issue....I have taken back that point. We are all entitled to mistakes.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) What is your definition of Love ?
I have already posted my definition of love but here you go again.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Love for me is wanting to be with that person and becoming one with that person, blending of the two personalities to become one, having their problems become your problems and their flaws become your flaws. (for my wife)Love in others is overlooking their flaws and caring for them no matter what they do be it good or bad or even against your beliefs, being there for them in their time of need even if it causes you pain or suffering.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) The love you feel for her...did you invent it ? Or do you base your definition on what already exists between you too ?
Originally posted by Lord UrizenYes we do learn more about animals as time goes on but certain things are already known. We film them and track them throughout the years and document herds and individual animals for decades now and with the behavior that they show on VERY rare occasions as to take care of another species or protect them would have been recorded or documented more frequently. Understanding observed behavior and knowing what is going on in their minds are very different things. Throwing a ball of string in front of a kitten you can observe the play and know that it will play with the string but knowing what it thinks the string is different but you do know of what the cause and effect is.
As time goes by we learn more and more about animals and human beings alike. Long ago, people were unaware that animals could be homosexual.....this has already been proven, but many people are UNAWARE of that fact due to poor distribution of the evidense.Thereby, it surprises me not that these "abnormal" occurences are not shown more often and are treated as "abnormal" since we really do not know what goes on in the mind of animals, let alone other human beings.
You can study animal behavior all you want, you will still never truly know what goes on in thier minds....
Originally posted by Lord UrizenIndeed.
Nothing wrong with that 🙂
Originally posted by Lord UrizenStating that "just because something cannot be proven does not mean it doesn't exist" does not constitute evidence. Your beliefs are not evidenced. And attempting to use them to denounce evidenced research is inadequate. You attempt to disregard research because of use of an animal model for experiments, yet you have no research, no model, no experiments. Highly hypocritical.
But it has evidence nonetheless. Just because something cannot be proven does not mean it doesn't exist.I beleive that everything, mental, emotional, and physical is all related.
I beleive everything you say, [b]except one thing:
That Love is purely physical....your logic is so materialistically biased, you have not considered the obvious:[/B]
Originally posted by Lord UrizenThat's a nice, but unsubstantiated belief. And a strawman argument, I never said it was purely physical. Simply that evidence at this time indicates a physical basis.
All you can SEE is the physical....physicality is the [b]ONLY PROOF you can EVER FIND because our senses are not advanced enough to fully grasp or recognize the mental or emotional existances.[/B]
Originally posted by Lord UrizenVery nice strawmanning indeed, and further proof of the manner in which you "debate". The context was clearly with regard to when one forms an argument or explanation of phenomena based purely on personal belief. The edicts of Buddha with regard to how one should strive to live, independent thought and opinion, and works of literary fiction being completely irrelevant to the point I made.
So would you argue that what Buddha taught is worthless? He seemed to have made a significant and meaningful impact on mankind in my opinion.Would you argue that thought or opinion of any kind is worthless? Is curiosity, questioning, or rationalizing also worthless ?
I guess that means Literature is worthless as well, as are feelings, as are our desires as human beings.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI.e. god of gaps. An incomplete understanding does not imply that the premise is incorrect, nor does it support an intangible explanation. Secondly what flaws? Your bizarre questions?
I [b]have found flaws for which no one has answered, not even you ❌[/B]
Originally posted by Lord UrizenFurther strawmanning. Based on the evidence at hand there is a physical basis for emotion. Based on the lack of evidence for your theory it is not credible. It is purely an argument of personal belief.
Evolution has an astounding amount of evidense to support it. You have evidense to relate the phenomena or "thoery" of love to the physical, but because we physically dependent beings, you will never find proof of the mental or emotional (or even spiritual) truth behind Love.The fact that you will never see that, does not render it [b]non existant
Geez...for such an intelligent person, you are SO LIMITTED...
What amazes me about your hardcore scientists is how you TRULY BELIEVE that you can discover the absolute and final truth behind ALL things 😆[/B]
Originally posted by Lord UrizenCommentary on human arrogance from you is rich.
I was laughing because I know we wouldn't dare do these tests on lions....we as human beings are generally cowards and will only perform such tests on animals who can do us no harm.We think we are that much better.... 🙄
Originally posted by Lord UrizenOne cannot prove or disprove the existence of god as the concept is intangible and supernatural.
My "theory of love" is not baseless simply because I am not relying on a PHYSICAL MEANS....I bet you think you can PROVE that God, or some superior guiding force doesn't exist. How foolish....
One can however show the origin of species through evolution and geology indicating that the god of the Bible did not create the earth in days and humans from dirt.
One can investigate and find evidence for a physical basis for emotion which in the same manner places doubt upon your theory that there is no tangible explanation for love.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenOh you're not hysterical in your posts at all. Very demure and poised.
Yet for someone so knowledgable in one field, you sorely lack knowledge in another.....You do not know everything...you cannot know everything. OFCOURSE LOVE and ALL MENTAL/EMOTIONAL existances are going to have a PHYSICAL ASPECT...
[b]BUT TO CLAIM THAT THE PHYSICAL IS THE ROOT WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER TESTED OR SEEN THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL, IS FOOLISH.....
YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE PHYSICAL...YOU, WITH ALL YOUR FANCY SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE/SMELL/TOUCH WHAT LIES BEYOND THE PHYSICAL REALM.
You are a FOOL for not realizing that....for thinking that the physical is ALL that EXISTS because it's all you can SEE
[/B]
There is a physical basis for human cognition, emotion and personality. There is a physical basis for human consciousness. One can easily see this in the altered emotion, cognition and perception of those with neurological disorder. One can easily see this in that people die. I state there is a basis for emotion in the physical because there is evidence for this. That does not preclude other avenues. However there is no evidence of the other avenues sufficient for them to be credible.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenThat's nice, Cujo. Especially considering how avidly you refuse to accept the ideas of others. This thread being exemplary. You're more than welcome to your beliefs and opinions, and to express them. But while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts.
Your closemindedness despite you being a scientist is more hysterical than my curiosities and reasoning could ever be
Re: Re: Re: If Jesus is Love....
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Love is beyond a definition, beyond words, beyond the limits of our language.
Oh yes -- tis a very thought provoking response indeed. Odd, how one can't recall you using this same definitional rationale in the proceeding post --
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Jesus is Love....then we are all Christian, because we all possess Love...therefore we possess Christ.
So I guess if one defines Jesus as being "love", and then uses this very same "definition" to synonomously define what makes one a Christian, any intelligent individual can certainly see that no sort of definition of what love is -- has been provided in the above referenced quote, particularly when given additional veritable "definitions" of what love isn't in previous quotes.(unless of course you believe that you have given us no veritable definitions at all, which would then lead me to believe that you have alluded that you are be a liar.)
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Am I discourteous? At timesAm I selfish? At times
Am I proud? VERY much so ✅
Am I loving ? Oh yesss...
Wait...the Bible says I'm not. Guess what....that means sh*t to me. The Bible is not fact. Please do not confuse the two.
Hahahaha.... Hahahahaha. So the biblical defintion of love means "sh*t" to you? How are you still not defining what love is? If your interpretation of love is not dependant upon the bible, then you are still giving us your "definition" of what you believe love is, by defining what it is not.
And yet again, this "definition" is followed by another "definition" of the "undefinable" love which you've so graciously introduced us to --
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
it exists, but we cannot fully define it, because it exists in US ALL, and therefore our own intepretations and mental constructs will individualize this force we call love, therefore making no one definition accurate.
And still another definition--
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Logically speaking, if Christ is Love, then we all are of Christ...whether we realize it or not.
And yet still others --
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But if you claim that Christ is Love, then I possess him or it into my being since I possess Love.The love that Christians have as human beings is equal to the Love I have as a human being.
Love is not Christian, it is not buddhist, it is not bound by any Human
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Seriously flawed logic? Such a mighty claim ! I admire that ! Now can you back it up ? WITH FACT ?
Oh I don't need to back it up, nothing that you have argued has a single grain of truth to it. Not a single functional or logical component. With each post you only continue to demonstrate this, by proceeding to give us "defintions" to what you consider to be "undefinable."
Love can indeed be defined Urizon, however, it's just that you and I don't possess the necessary intellect or ability to completely comprehend it in all of its glory and splendor.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You claim Christian Love is superior to "standard" Love as if it is Fact. If this is so fact, then I assume you can PROVE IT.
I made no such claim. I merely stated that Christian love, as biblically defined and as personified in Christ, is much different than the worldly version of love which you have miserably failed in relating it to. Does taking things out of context and purposely trying to confuse and confuddle others with warped logic come easy to you?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And please...no Biblical passages as evidense, because the Bible does NOT qualify as proof of anything.How limitted you must be to think that all the complexities of this Universe, let alone this world, can be solved and answered through an outdated, self contradicting book... ❌
Hmmm...but providing us with your own self-contradicting, self proclaimed "factual" opinions is proof? You are indeed correct about one thing Urizon, I do limit my interaction and understanding when confronted with stupidity. Now please excuse me for a moment as I get back to my laughter...HaHaHaHaHa...