LOVE

[justifyothers]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

[Furrowed Brow]

I do maintain that we are at the top of the 'ladder' of intelligence, though. Is there something I don't know about ? Did the dolphins pass us by ?

Yes. They’ve been thanking us for the fish for sometime now. It’s the mice that are way out in front.

On a more serious note. I have given a run down of why the word “love” is messy and not discrete, and how its meaning is embedded in the language situation.

Confused has pointed out that there is no biological centre for “love”.

So when you see love manifesting itself when one rebukes, or scolds or hugs etc. I do not disagree that in all these actions I may be displaying love for my child. However, I say ‘my love’ is the theme, or narrative by which I lead my life. Alternatively those behaviours that are genetically ingrained for me to care for my offspring are in place. And the biology behind this is complex. Between the two forms of explanation I see no reason for invoking anything more.

[justifyothers]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Actually, under an MRI screening, when test subjects were shown pictures of individuals they were madly in "love" with, two particular areas lit up like flashworks on the 4th of july. One area was asssociated with the dopamine effect (lust, immediate pleasure) the other was associated with the oxytocin effect that tends to increase attacthments. There was an article in the National Geographic, I will have to find it. I am sure I have posted it on a previous "love" thread on this forum. If I can't find it, I will find the article.

hi confused.
I think i saw that show or read an article similar to it. The tests I saw all had to be done on couples married 1 year or less, becuause the 'fireworks' weren't significant after that time...leading them to the conclusion that it was more sexual arousal than anything else.
Did you find something different?

[Curious]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Love appears to be a form of selective "collectivism". You want to protect yourself which is natural. You want the best for yourself which is also natural. You then broaden your horizons to include those who have ties to you (such as family) or those who have similar interests (such as friends and partners) or those you admire. To be part of a collective it is necessary, from a primary state of selfishness, to emphasise the importance of what is not you. Love is an emotion that enhances us by showing us we are not the most important person. Love is the difference between a group of individuals and a family. Without love, (or something similar), we are alone.

[katiej49]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Love appears to be a form of selective "collectivism". You want to protect yourself which is natural. You want the best for yourself which is also natural. You then broaden your horizons to include those who have ties to you (such as family) or those who have similar interests (such as friends and partners) or those you admire. To be part of a collective it is necessary, from a primary state of selfishness, to emphasise the importance of what is not you. Love is an emotion that enhances us by showing us we are not the most important person. Love is the difference between a group of individuals and a family. Without love, (or something similar), we are alone.

who made it natural? who made us all with the deep desire for fellowship? how is it we all have that in common....because we were made in the image of a God who is love....!

[NotR]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

which love do you talk of? Because if you gave an example of elaphants but, as far as i believe, animals act according to instinct. Perhaps its the same for us... Love is needed for survival.
You gave an example of uncertain love in elaphant communities. What they do is look after and care for eachother. Nonetheless, it is a survival instinct. They have to do this to live. For human, who is also a social creature, things are different. Humans are more complex. They do not respond to what is around them as much as to what is inside them. We have basic instincts like fear and lust, but we can decide for ourselves...
In spiritual background, there are two types of love. God and Man. God loves us as father. The difference betwean love and respect is that respect undergoes commitment and love is honest personal realationship. Man's love is either one or the other. even in love betwean man and woman is no exeption. but love is a force that can cause great deeds of evil and good. a bond that requires mind to govern. and any fool who feels it, it is transformed to lust in his mind. perhaps it is a gift such as life is. but a gift just as essential for survival.

[AClockWorkOrange]

i am going to explain it in two ways.

1.) Love is attraction. All animals feel this. We are, however, far more complicated (as far as we know) than animals, so we inevitably complicate and intellectualize attraction (love)

2.) Love is when someone or something else completes needs and or share simular values.

[Confused]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Actually, under an MRI screening, when test subjects were shown pictures of individuals they were madly in "love" with, two particular areas lit up like flashworks on the 4th of july. One area was associated with the dopamine effect (lust, immediate pleasure) the other was associated with the oxytocin effect that tends to increase attachments. There was an article in the National Geographic, I will have to find it. I am sure I have posted it on a previous "love" thread on this forum. If I can't find it, I will find the article.

hi confused.
I think i saw that show or read an article similar to it. The tests I saw all had to be done on couples married 1 year or less, because the 'fireworks' weren't significant after that time...leading them to the conclusion that it was more sexual arousal than anything else.
Did you find something different?

This was shown for the dopamine effect. That first "lust" response. And not all test subjects were married, some were, some were in new relationships, some were in relationships that were < 5yrs, some >5 yrs. As time goes on, the dopamine effect diminishes and oxytocin overrides it to suggest a connection or attachment. Further into the relationship >1 year it was suggested that oxytocin continues to dominate but serotonin also seem to increase to further the attachment.

Of course, considering how many relationships fail before even the 5 year point, it would suggest that these hormones/neurochemicals may be linked with the "love" notion but cannot be the substance that actually defines love. Biologically, there has yet to be any data to prove that such an emotion exists as we define it today. Rather, if one was to manipulate the levels of hormones, it would be possible to block the response altogether. We assume that men with low testosterone levels have lower sex drives and suffer the "middle age crisis" more than men with therapeutic testosterone levels. We also assume that men with therapeutic levels of both testosterone and estrogen are less likely to have the "middle age" crisis. But of course, studies likely exist to show just the opposite. The point is that the concept of love cannot be described as any lasting biological emotion. We can measure the effects the dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, testosterone, estrogen, etc... all have on the brain of individuals who claim to be in "love" or "lust" but there is no reason why this emotion shouldn't last. Yet it doesn't. There is no biological basis to justify it.

Combine this with how the word has been abused and misrepresented by todays society and I have to say that the concept of love is utopian at best. I think it does more damage than good.

[justifyothers]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Actually, under an MRI screening, when test subjects were shown pictures of individuals they were madly in "love" with, two particular areas lit up like flashworks on the 4th of july. One area was associated with the dopamine effect (lust, immediate pleasure) the other was associated with the oxytocin effect that tends to increase attachments. There was an article in the National Geographic, I will have to find it. I am sure I have posted it on a previous "love" thread on this forum. If I can't find it, I will find the article.

hi confused.
I think i saw that show or read an article similar to it. The tests I saw all had to be done on couples married 1 year or less, because the 'fireworks' weren't significant after that time...leading them to the conclusion that it was more sexual arousal than anything else.
Did you find something different?

This was shown for the dopamine effect. That first "lust" response. And not all test subjects were married, some were, some were in new relationships, some were in relationships that were < 5yrs, some >5 yrs. As time goes on, the dopamine effect diminishes and oxytocin overrides it to suggest a connection or attachment. Further into the relationship >1 year it was suggested that oxytocin continues to dominate but serotonin also seem to increase to further the attachment.

Of course, considering how many relationships fail before even the 5 year point, it would suggest that these hormones/neurochemicals may be linked with the "love" notion but cannot be the substance that actually defines love. Biologically, there has yet to be any data to prove that such an emotion exists as we define it today. Rather, if one was to manipulate the levels of hormones, it would be possible to block the response altogether. We assume that men with low testosterone levels have lower sex drives and suffer the "middle age crisis" more than men with therapeutic testosterone levels. We also assume that men with therapeutic levels of both testosterone and estrogen are less likely to have the "middle age" crisis. But of course, studies likely exist to show just the opposite. The point is that the concept of love cannot be described as any lasting biological emotion. We can measure the effects the dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, testosterone, estrogen, etc... all have on the brain of individuals who claim to be in "love" or "lust" but there is no reason why this emotion shouldn't last. Yet it doesn't. There is no biological basis to justify it.

Combine this with how the word has been abused and misrepresented by todays society and I have to say that the concept of love is utopian at best. I think it does more damage than good.

HHMMM...thanks for posting that data. It's interesting, huh? I agree with your idea about the 'utopian' view of love. It does make some have unrealistic expectations, which is probably why our divorce rate IS so high. But I do think the effects of 'love' such as kindness and compassion are what seem most benficial and helpful to our society. These are the meaningful attributes of 'love' we should focus on.

[Confused]

HHMMM...thanks for posting that data. It's interesting, huh? I agree with your idea about the 'utopian' view of love. It does make some have unrealistic expectations, which is probably why our divorce rate IS so high. But I do think the effects of 'love' such as kindness and compassion are what seem most benficial and helpful to our society. These are the meaningful attributes of 'love' we should focus on.

I agree on the limitation that it is love portrayed as humanity, not romance. I may be atheist, but I believe you should love (respect, help) your neighbor, unless they give reasons not to. But in regards to relationships, the concept it moot. It has become so abused and made mystical that future generations stand little to no hope of finding it. They will read their childhood fantasy books, and never find prince charming. It is sad, but true.

[justifyothers]

HHMMM...thanks for posting that data. It's interesting, huh? I agree with your idea about the 'utopian' view of love. It does make some have unrealistic expectations, which is probably why our divorce rate IS so high. But I do think the effects of 'love' such as kindness and compassion are what seem most benficial and helpful to our society. These are the meaningful attributes of 'love' we should focus on.

I agree on the limitation that it is love portrayed as humanity, not romance. I may be atheist, but I believe you should love (respect, help) your neighbor, unless they give reasons not to. But in regards to relationships, the concept it moot. It has become so abused and made mystical that future generations stand little to no hope of finding it. They will read their childhood fantasy books, and never find prince charming. It is sad, but true.

I know.....my daughter is nine and I fully intend on making sure she doesn't have this false idea of love (to the best of my ability).