[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 106 KB, 441x648, you gonna get loved tenderly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5475089 No.5475089[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I was talking to my cousin earlier today and he asked if since I'm an atheist I don't believe in love. Don't get your tits in a fracas yet, I am getting to the science part in a bit. He asked because I apparently once told him my reasoning for my lack of belief was something along the lines of "I don't believe shit stinks til I smell it", and that since I can't see love it must not exist to me. As far as I know, at least one of the physical evidences of love is an actual chemical reaction in my body that is engrained in my genetic make up to aid in furthering my species. I think. Am I even close to forming an argument for the existence of love outside of any woo woo shit related to souls and the like?

>> No.5475116

>>5475089
Yes, stick to neurochemistry and NMRT pictures.

>> No.5475120

>>5475089
one of my friends actually said the same thing. love seems to be the default thing-science-cant -explain to these people.

>> No.5475156

Well if you define 'existence' as being only things that are made of matter then love does not exist. Chemical and electric interactions in the brain exist, by that definition, as do human claims of the experience of love, but that's all.

In order for love to exist you need a more complex view of the universe, and it's probably too much for your brain to handle. It's best not to worry about it, after all, believing in love don't put food on the table.

>> No.5475167
File: 24 KB, 640x480, fry I see what you did there.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5475167

>>5475156
not sure if trying to deepak chopra my ass

>> No.5475170
File: 33 KB, 500x400, cat love tits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5475170

Now that I think about it, the effect of feels on the physical environment should be proof enough of its existence. Thanks for the input, anyway.

>> No.5475173

>>5475167
Was he the guy from 'the quantum activist'? That movie sucked.

I'm just saying that love doesn't exist, that's all.

>> No.5475176

>>5475170
So if the brain scans of people in prayer shows a physical change in their brains while they're praying then that proves the existence of god?

Get real, man.

>> No.5475203

>>5475176
That proves their true feelings only. And love is a feel.

>> No.5475206

>>5475203
feeling don't exist

>> No.5475213
File: 64 KB, 512x512, I will kill you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5475213

>>5475206
Then how did that statement just troll the shit out me?

>> No.5475218
File: 16 KB, 359x270, I love you bitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5475218

>>5475176
Pretty much what >>5475203 said. As long as the person feels that what they're doing is actually worthwhile they'll convince themselves that it's actually worthwhile.

>> No.5475225

>>5475213
>immaterial things exist
okay then, buddy.... whatever you say...

>> No.5475237

>>5475225
Are you trying to tell me that humans don't experience feelings?

>> No.5475240

>>5475156
If there is a strong correspondance between particular
>Chemical and electric interactions
and
>human claims of the experience of love
then it is reasonable to call the former "love".

this has been done with other mental/emotional states such as stress. love is no biggy

>> No.5475244

>>5475225
Oh wow, tell me do mind and consciousness exist? You say no - now thats just nonsence. You say yes - that what's the radical difference from those and emotions/feelings? Both are complex neurophysiological fenomena.
>Ad hominem time!
>Are you a cold unemotional schizoid or something?

>> No.5475245

>>5475244
then*

>> No.5475246

>>5475244
>mind and consciousness exist
the former yes, the latter is usually ill defined, so to speak of its existence is often not science

>> No.5475249

>>5475237
am I trying to tell you that humans don't experience feelings.....

Hmm... no, I'm saying that immaterial things don't exist. Experience, being immaterial, does not exist.
>>human claims of the experience of love
>then it is reasonable to call the former "love".
If you're using the word 'love' to mean 'human claims of the experience of love', then 'love', by that definition, exists.

>> No.5475255

>>5475249
Experience exists if we define it as sensory stimulation and formation of memory.

Most magical words have simple physical correspondences.

For some reason ultra-materialists need to keep these ideas magical so they have something to shout at.

I think they doth protest too much.

>> No.5475256

>>5475249
So... you're using semantics to tell me that emotions are not matter?

>> No.5475262

>>5475256
Yes. I like to have something to denounce. If we use prosaic materialist meanings of words like "mind" I have nothing to get cross with.

>> No.5475263

>>5475256
>>5475255
if we're using words that typically refer to immaterial things in order to refer to material things then... all of those things exist.

For instance, someone says "I feel hungry" they mean "there are atoms in a brain and/or body located here such as typical correspond with human descriptions of hunger" then that makes sense. I'm glad we're all on the same page.

>> No.5475274

>>5475263
>typically

since when did anyone with above average intelligence use "typical" meanings for such ideas. scientists have been saying things like "god does not play dice" or "know the mind of god" for centuries, knowing their idea of god is not typical and not to be taken as such

do you live in some dumbed down shit-hole? or is it just aspergers, where definition must be spelled out