Originally posted by inimalist
This is grossly inaccurate. Love is not an imperfection, but an evolved reaction to social situations. It is adaptive and highly important to the human condition. It is also not caused by chemicals, especially in the way you are describing. Neurological function is highly resilient to reductionist views, and especially for something like love, it's causes will be based in developmental, social and cultural issues, and will not be caused by chemicals in the brain, but rather by the pattern of firing of neurons in certain regions as interpreted by higher cognitive areas based on past experience and expectation, added to genetic/automatic responses to the stimuli in a present situation where one feels love.
I agree with you there.
Xmarksthespot however, another fellow KMC scientist, argued that Love is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. I'm glad another scientifically well informed poster argued against that idiotic claim 👆
See, I don't believe Love is a chemical reaction at all.
I believe its social conditioning. Its all psychologic and social.
There isn't one single thing that happens which triggers love. Thats why our feelings of love towards out partners, our mothers, our personal belongings, our grandparents and our friends is completely different.
If it was down to simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of love would be projected the same at everyone/thing.
Now being turned on is a chemical reaction. You get turned on by different things, but the feeling of being aroused doesnt change depending on who you're aroused by.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I agree with you there.[b]Xmarksthespot
however, another fellow KMC scientist, argued that Love is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. I'm glad another scientifically well informed poster argued against that idiotic claim 👆 [/B]
well, it is and it isn't. People get caught up in the chemicals, and they are HIGHLY important, but, for instance, the substantia nigra uses dopamine to both excite and inhibit areas in the pre-motor cortex to either produce or prevent movement. Everything is chemicals, but there is little explanatory power in saying a chemical is responsible for something. There are cases, but my reading of it is that more stuff is explained better using interaction of patterns of firing across many connected brain areas rather than chemical signals.
Love being a chemical reaction is not an idiotic claim. You reading is a chemical reaction, you moving is a chemical reaction.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
See, I don't believe Love is a chemical reaction at all.I believe its social conditioning. Its not on a scientific side at all, but rather psychologic and social.
There isn't one single thing that happens which triggers love. Thats why our feelings of love towards out partners, our mothers, our personal belongings, our grandparents and our friends is completely different.
If it was down to simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of love would be projected the same at everyone/thing.
Now being turned on is a chemical reaction. You get turne on by different things, but the feeling of being aroused doesnt change depending on who you're aroused by.
social conditioning is a chemical reaction
EDIT: LOL, I just thought about it, chemical reaction is probably the wrong term. Not being a chemist I do not know, but neurology isn't like mixing baking soda and vinegar. Chemicals are involved, but chemical "reactions"... I think that means something specific not being discussed here.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
See, I don't believe Love is a chemical reaction at all.I believe its social conditioning. Its not on a scientific side at all, but rather psychologic and social.
There isn't one single thing that happens which triggers love. Thats why our feelings of love towards out partners, our mothers, our personal belongings, our grandparents and our friends is completely different.
If it was down to simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of love would be projected the same at everyone/thing.
Now being turned on is a chemical reaction. You get turne on by different things, but the feeling of being aroused doesnt change depending on who you're aroused by.
I agree with you, but even if it was chemical, how does that prove or disprove god? 😕
Originally posted by inimalist
social conditioning is a chemical reaction
How is it?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree with you, but even if it was chemical, how does that prove or disprove god? 😕
Yeah, i know, it doesn't at all. The whole question in this thread just makes no sense. I just went along with the discussion.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
See, I don't believe Love is a chemical reaction at all.I believe its social conditioning. Its not on a scientific side at all, but rather psychologic and social.
There isn't one single thing that happens which triggers love. Thats why our feelings of love towards out partners, our mothers, our personal belongings, our grandparents and our friends is completely different.
If it was down to simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of love would be projected the same at everyone/thing.
Now being turned on is a chemical reaction. You get turne on by different things, but the feeling of being aroused doesnt change depending on who you're aroused by.
I like that you used the word "projected" because all the usually-amorphic term 'love' is, is a projection of a person's feelings onto a situation. Love is just the word for a lot of different feelings/responses/etc. and essentially arbitrary and useless as a defining concept.
I read a wonderful article (focused on consciouness, not love) that made a similar point about conscious experiences being a product of social conditioning and language acquisition, and he too rejected the reductionist view. Basically, if we have words (or some symbolic language, visual, auditory, or otherwise) to describe a situation, we can become conscious of it. A newborn isn't conscious because it has no frame of reference and no symbolic representations (language) with which to internalize the external world. The same goes for animals, most of whom cannot internally represent anything (some can, though they are limited severely by their inability to learn numerous words or symbols).
The only way we can accurately measure behavior is in behavioral terms, and love is no different. Which thus makes it a social phenomenon, not a reductionist biological one...though of course there are biological processes taking place during the projection of "love" by a person (though these of course differ greatly).
...I wish I could quote the article but I'm not at home. Maybe tomorrow.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree with you, but even if it was chemical, how does that prove or disprove god? 😕
It doesn't, of course. Chicken's just a bit overzealous. Though a lot of amusement can be gleaned from the "leap before you look" types.
Re: challenge to all christians
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect
I can't. If I could, my God wouldn't be big enough for me. It's none of my concern to worry about whether or not love can exist w/o chemicals and hormones--just that it can, because anything is possible with God.
😎 😉
Re: Re: challenge to all christians
Originally posted by BobbyD
I can't. If I could, my God wouldn't be big enough for me. It's none of my concern to worry about whether or not love can exist w/o chemicals and hormones--just that it can, because anything is possible with God.😎 😉
Are you so sure that all things are possible with god? But I digress.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How is it?
For information to enter the brain and be processed, chemicals must be involved. When you look at your mother, the photon of light hits your eye, breaks a chemical chain, sending an electro chemical signal through many neurons into the visual cortex where similar electro chemical signals break down and process various parts and features of the image. Anything that would be considered "social", once it is inside of the brain being processed, is chemical. (I'm positive chemical is being used incorrectly, but I honestly don't know a better way to describe it).
Social conditioning can take many forms. If it is a simple reflex or automatic response, that is due to, iirc, long term potentiation in the hippocampus. As you hear a bell, the sound waves enter the ear, undergo transduction to become electro-chemical signals. These signals eventually enter the hippocampus. Now, say you are suppose to get some food when you hear the bell. The first few times, you wont necessarily be expecting it, but as the bell and the food are more commonly presented together, you associate the two automatically. So, there are 2 pathways that meet in the hippocampus, one from the ears, one about food expectation. The more the two are presented together, the more chemicals from the sound pathway excite the food pathway. Over time, this connection basically turns the 2 pathways into a single response.
From a developmental point of view, a concept called neuroplasticity would be relevant. Basically, brain cells to not develop with a great deal of specification. There is some, but nothing is set up. A good example of this is an experiment done with kittens. Some kittens were reared in an environment devoid of horizontal lines, and when later presented with horizontal lines, were unable to properly perceive and interact with them. Another kitten experiment had scientists cover one eye on many kittens as they went through their development period. Some, had the eye uncovered part way through. Those that had the eye covered the whole time only developed half a visual system, and some of the cortical area normally used for vision was being used for something else, whereas the kittens whose eye was uncovered developed a proper visual system. This works because of how neurons communicate with each other. Each neuron (generalization) has an axon and many dendrites. When neurotrasnmitters (chemicals) are released at the axon, they interact with the dendrites of the next neuron and either excite or inhibit its action. during brain development, the axons and dendrites of neurons have yet to connect or create proper connections. As stimuli hit the sensory organs (eyes ears mouth and nose... lol) those neurons release chemical signals that the neurons who will eventually connect to that neuron are sensitive to, and they grow either axons or dendrites in that direction (for some reason I think the neurons themselves can migrate based on these chemical signals). Once these connections are made, specialization occurs and the brain keeps and uses the strongest pathways.
blah, hopefully thats good. I'll leave it at that in case it doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, it is and it isn't. People get caught up in the chemicals, and they are HIGHLY important, but, for instance, the substantia nigra uses dopamine to both excite and inhibit areas in the pre-motor cortex to either produce or prevent movement. Everything is chemicals, but there is little explanatory power in saying a chemical is responsible for something. There are cases, but my reading of it is that more stuff is explained better using interaction of patterns of firing across many connected brain areas rather than chemical signals.Love being a chemical reaction is not an idiotic claim. You reading is a chemical reaction, you moving is a chemical reaction.