What Is Love?
This is a followup to the topics we ranged over during yesterday's discussion of cathexis.
What is love? According to this site,
Dopamine, phenyl ethylamine and oxytocin.
"The parts of the brain that involve unconscious processes like movement are heavily involved with strong feelings of love." So remember, the next time you fall head over heels, to whisper these sweet words: medial insula, anterior cingulate, basal ganglia."
Discuss. (I love throwing curveballs.) :)
Comments
eternalmaiden on Nov. 3, 2005 9:34 PM
Those are the chemicals involved, yes... but I know that it is much more than that. Why do we release those particular chemicals? what triggers it?
Risking bringing about the same old Ayn Rand comparison, Love is the highest compliment I can give someone.
overthesun on Nov. 3, 2005 10:30 PM — Metaphysics
And now we get into one of those primal Metaphysical (Or Faith based, if that's your take) questions.
Is our experience nothing more than biochemical/Electrochemical? Or is that merely the hardware upon which a "Operating system" (Soul, Spirit, "Consciousness") operates.
IE:Are we nothing more than our brain chemestry? Or could one maintain hatred even through an impressed level of Dopamine, phenyl ethylamine and oxytocin.
matt-arnold on Nov. 3, 2005 10:48 PM — Re: Metaphysics
A brief aside for a moment. How often have you heard the word "love" defined when anyone uses it? I very rarely have. And when someone talks about a specific, well-defined form of "love", how often do people respond using "love" in a generalized and poorly-defined way? For me, that is most of the time. {/aside}
Given that the mind is knocked unconscious by physical effects on the brain, and given the documented effect of drugs and electricity on the brain, there is no mental phenomenon which needs to be explained by positing anything else. Parsimony demands that I see the human mind as a pattern of matter and energy. When one maintains hatred despite the chemicals of infatuation, it's because of other physical effects. Cause follows from effect in the universe as surely as a row of dominos. Human unpredictability is explained by chaos theory. This tells us that the output of a simple deterministic process such as a cellular automata -- to say nothing of complex systems -- cannot be predicted except by actually running that process. There is also apparently an element of dice-rolling chance in events making them not totally deterministic, if those events are small enough to occur at the quantum level. There may be brain functions at that level.
Don't get me wrong, the way I see it you and I are not an illusion. We exist and possess a will. But what this means is that we are the dominos and the dice. The genetic and environmental process that results in my behavior is responsible for my behavior, and is me, so I am responsible for my behavior.
amanda_lodden on Nov. 4, 2005 6:00 PM — Re: Metaphysics
The problem with this question is that it assumes that we know everything there is to know about our brain chemistry. Science makes new strides every day, but for every one thing we can fully explain there are an untold number of other things we don't even know exist.
The difference between a faith-based view and a science-based view is how you handle the unexplained. Faith says "It is the will of and I lack the ability to fathom it." Science says "It's something we haven't quite gotten nailed down. I *can* understand it, I just don't yet."
amanda_lodden on Nov. 4, 2005 6:01 PM — Re: Metaphysics
Hurm, that's what I get for using greater-than and less-than signs. As originally written, that said "Faith says 'It is the will of >insert favorite deity here< and I lack the ability to fathom it.'"
overthesun on Nov. 4, 2005 8:27 PM — Re: Metaphysics
Which explains why I stand half way between faith, and science. .. At least on this issue.
I believe that there are going to end up being a couple of unresolvable questions related to personality, mentality, consciousness. That, even at the peak of understanding, there will still be a piece to consciousness that we can not simply reproduce. At least, not until we understand the nature of reality much, much better than we do now.
Or, to put it another way: I don'e expect to live to see the full answer, so I place that sort of question in a box, label it "Currently Unresolvable", Afix the answer (for myself) firmly at the 50% mark, and drop it.
Which, of course, makes it hard for me to answer to Matt why I believe what I do *grin*
matt-arnold on Nov. 4, 2005 8:36 PM — Re: Metaphysics
I don't actually know what you believe very well, but now it's clear why you don't tell me. I did not know you identified as a Buddhist when I wrote this, but you might find it encouraging. I am no more interested in Buddha as a teacher than I am in Christ, Ayn Rand, or any other teacher, but in any statement where one of them turns out to be correct I'm happy to incorporate it.
overthesun on Nov. 5, 2005 2:53 AM — Re: Metaphysics
Well, im glad if I have made it clear why I dont .. . . .. Because it's far from clear to me.
I have a series of beliefs, some that directly conflict with each other, and most of them do not beling to *Any* religion. I have learned many things that feel like true, core, truth's, some of which seem to conflict each other. I have led myself to a place where I assume it is my perception, and mentation, that produces those seeming conflicts.
When I reach places where both truth's seem to apply, I look for balance either way. . . .. And if I fail to find it, I go for first impulse, leaving the choice to my subconscious, and trusting. I spend much of my life looking for places to clarify those seeming conflicts . .. . . Find the intersection point. . . . Make whole those sundered truths .. . . . Looking for the grand, unified structure of truth, if you will.
(As an aside, that's one of the reasons I enjoy you, and your mind, so much. You often create a non-judgemental idea-tournament around you, which often clarifies minor points in my thinking. Also, as you seem to stick to some of the same truth's I feel {Though I have yet to hear you state any of them}, I get the feeling that, one of these days, one of your arena's will bring to light a key piece. . . . And the time inbetween is fun, and filled with good, so it seems like a perfect match)
As for your link. . . .. What you said had a lot of Buddhist in it. Perhaps a more buddhist way to say it would be this:
Look at what *Is*. Not what you want it to be, or want to make it, or fear of it. See the truth. If the truth is good, then let it stand. If it is not, make the smallest change you can arrange to make it good. Don't try to force it into a mold, as that is the most likely way to break it beyond repair.
Or, perhaps more clearly:
( from the Beginners Mind section of http://www.ofspirit.com/tuhoang1.htm, which, along with the mindfullness section, do a great job of intorducing the mindset of buddhism, without the dogma)
take in the situation unencumbered and unfiltered by your knowledge and conditioning and learning. Trust that you have all of the prerequisite abilities that have taken you this far in life to respond to any situation. Once your initial, reflexive thoughts subside you will find that by not categorizing situations as they arise you will be open to more alternatives, more opportunities and more ways of responding to the situation appropriately and effectively.
rachelann1977 on Nov. 3, 2005 11:40 PM — It's a language problem
OK, what I think of as love is not the same as what another person may think of as love. Some languages have five or more words for what we only have one word for. The French, Je t'aime, translates directly as I like you, because they think of love, or define it, differently.
The word is insufficient to cover the multitudes of experience it is supposed to refer to.
treebones on Nov. 4, 2005 1:34 AM
Particularly the oxytocin. Which is one of the reasons why massage therapists have to have very stringent boundaries around building out-of-practice relationships with clients. Touching another person releases oxytocin, one of the strongest bonding hormones there is.
Oxytocin is one of the major hormones implicated in maternal-infant bonding, too. Whee.
cathyr19355 on Nov. 4, 2005 3:25 AM
Oh, yeah. It's my drug of choice, right now. :-)
treebones on Nov. 4, 2005 3:30 AM
Actually, I sometimes get in trouble that I refer to as my "bonding energy being too high". It is a *lot* more likely to happen when I'm not getting enough physical contact. If I find non-relationship means to get my oxytocin hunger sated, I am less likely to fling myself at the first thing which looks vaguely promising. (:
cathyr19355 on Nov. 5, 2005 2:37 AM
Wow. I guess I'm fortunate not to be so vulnerable to the "bonding energy too high" problem.
treebones on Nov. 5, 2005 3:50 PM
On the one side, it is a nuisance. On the other side, like any form of hunger, there's something nice about having the hunger met.
cathyr19355 on Nov. 6, 2005 6:34 AM
There always is. Biologically, there has to be, to provide the organism with incentives to satisfy the hunger.
brendand on Nov. 4, 2005 2:11 PM
Where's mine?!
treebones on Nov. 4, 2005 2:14 PM
Any competent massage therapist should be able to help you find it. (:
brendand on Nov. 4, 2005 2:16 PM
Feel free to offer, anytime! :)
treebones on Nov. 4, 2005 2:40 PM
I will strive to remember that the next time we're in the same room. (:
brendand on Nov. 4, 2005 2:44 PM
Yay!
phecda on Nov. 4, 2005 1:40 PM
So, as Robert Anton Wilson posits -- Are you your hardware, your software, or both?
Leave a Comment