Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That doesn't mean anything really- different definitions for such a loose concept are common.
If you can find a source that defines love as an "affectionate emotional response", I'll eat my words.
The fact is that he was the one recommending checking a dictionary, when his definition would most definitely not be in a dictionary.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If you can find a source that defines love as a "affectionate emotional response", I'll eat my words.The fact is that he was the one recommending checking a dictionary, when his definition would most definitely not be in a dictionary.
What I meant is that a dictionary would have the definitions in it for each word in the phrase and from that an understanding of the phrase should result.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
What I meant is that a dictionary would have the definitions in it for each word in the phrase and from that an understanding of the phrase should result.
Nice theory, but not really how things work.
'Affection' and 'emotion' are words that would/do actually fit into a definition of love, god knows where you got the word 'response' from, though.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
That goes back to your question of whether or not love is biological and I did answer that.
no it doesn't
it is about the subjective feeling of love, and how it relates, in a very complicated way, to different neurological function.
Essentially, if love were simply strong positive reaction to something, then why can it be so messed up? Clearly there are many, MANY, variables that determine what love is to any individual. To try to simplify it to processes you don't personally understand is intellectually dishonest.
Originally posted by inimalist
no it doesn't
Essentially, if love were simply strong positive reaction to something, then why can it be so messed up?
And it can be messed up because people try to build it up to be something so immense and miraculous, that it can never live up to their expectations.
Also other emotions such as jealousy can get in the way sometimes.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes it does.
The question about the roll of the amygdala in emotion and love is entirely unrelated to whether you think love is biological or cultural.
This leads me to believe you don't understand either of the points. Please ask for clarification, as I can assure you I wont refuse to define what I am talking about, because I know what I am talking about, normally 😛
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I never said it was a strong positive reaction, those are your words, not mine.
indeed, as mentioned before, I have no idea what you are talking about, and thus, have now had to make assumptions
if you could clarify what an affectionate emotional response is, if it is not a strong positive reaction, that would be wonderful.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And it can be messed up because people try to build it up to be something so immense and miraculous, that it can never live up to their expectations.
I'm talking about wires being crossed in the head, and differences between neurological function and subjective experience.
so, what you have said is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Also other emotions such as jealousy can get in the way sometimes.
how do emotions work to interact with each other?
Originally posted by inimalist
[B]The question about the roll of the amygdala in emotion and love is entirely unrelated to whether you think love is biological or cultural.
indeed, as mentioned before, I have no idea what you are talking about, and thus, have now had to make assumptions
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
In your opinion.
No, not really. It's a fact that context, syntax and a realm of other things have to be taken into account when establishing the meaning of a phrase.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Because love is a reaction to something or someone.
I don't really think it's necessary to include that fact in a definition.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No, not really. It's a fact that context, syntax and a realm of other things have to be taken into account when establishing the meaning of a phrase.
Love is an affectionate emotional response to something or someone.
I don't really think it's necessary to include that fact in a definition.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
In your opinion perhaps.
would you explain the connection? or is that too much to ask
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
A failing on your end, not mine.
no, you are totally correct
I am unable to understand basic concepts
look man, in pretty much every post I have asked you to explain something that, should love actually be an "affectionate emotional response", would be a simple question. If you know what an emotional response in humans comprises, you should have no problem explaining emotional interactions or connections between the thalamus and the amygdala. Obviously this part wont be ever quoted or addressed, yet I feel it is somewhat important to mention. Every step of the way I have essentially been handing you the opportunity to prove your point, and most often you ignore that part of my posts.
so fine, I cant understand what you say, it is way over my head. Principles of human behaviour and emotion, totally something I'm not interested or knowledgeable in. You are a freaking genius, and I feel so unimportant since you can't take the appropriate amount of time to explain your hidden truths to me.
Originally posted by inimalist
[B]would you explain the connection? or is that too much to ask
I have answered your question in the only ways I intend to, give it another hundred posts, my response will not change.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If you can find a source that defines love as an "affectionate emotional response", I'll eat my words.The fact is that he was the one recommending checking a dictionary, when his definition would most definitely not be in a dictionary.