LOVE

[Anonymous No.5885653]

/sci/ do you believe in love? Does it exist, if so in what form(s)?

[Anonymous No.5885661]

>>5885653
yes it does exist, its a very well documented mental state due to chemicals in the brain.

[Anonymous No.5885660]

>>5885653
in terms of the biochemistry of it, yes it's a real emotion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Biological_basis

in terms of the 'oh, my soul-mate is out there somewhere waiting for me!' then that's a load of bollocks.

love is fickle; it comes and goes.

[Anonymous No.5885662]

No.

[Anonymous No.5885664]

>>5885662
theres evidence linked from the fucking wiki link up there, spastic!

[Anonymous No.5885667]

>>5885660
>in terms of the 'oh, my soul-mate is out there somewhere waiting for me!' then that's a load of bollocks.

What does that mean? What kind of love are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.5885669]

>>5885661
>mental state due to chemicals in the brain

As opposed to mental states that are not "due to chemicals in the brain?"

[Anonymous No.5885672]

>>5885664
>evidence
I don't think you understand what that word means. How about you start by defining your nonsense in scientifically testable terms?

>>5885660
>soul-mate
Pseudoscience belongs on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5885676]

>>5885667
being 'in love' with someone.

i love it how everyfag who believes in soulmates doesnt question how it's a strange coincidence that their 'soul-mate' just happens to live in the same country,and usually same state as them, when a 'soul-mate' is unique and should therefore be anywhere in the world.

>ooh! we were meant to be together! *swoon*
fuck off with that shit

[Anonymous No.5885679]

What is love?

[Anonymous No.5885684]

>>5885679
baby dont hurt me

[Anonymous No.5885683]

>>5885672
all the evidence is right there in the fucking wiki you inbred shitstain!
you are such a shitty troll, and you know it.
>oh, im clearly wrong, i'll just deflect by pretending they don't know the meaning of a word.
stupid twat!

[Anonymous No.5885686]

>>5885683
By that reasoning ghosts are real too. I mean they have a wikipedia entry, don't they? EK, you don't understand the scientific method. You should have learned it in middle school but apparently you were to busy being a useless drug junkie instead.

[Anonymous No.5885689]

>>5885669
yes.

[Anonymous No.5885693]

>>5885686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost
>In traditional belief and fiction, a ghost (sometimes known as a spectre (British English) or specter (American English), phantom, apparition or spook) is the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear, in visible form or other manifestation, to the living.
>fiction
ahahah! yeah, that's right, cunt, the fith fucking word in the wiki entry.
but nice try

STFU and get out of my damn board!

[Anonymous No.5885698]

If I had never seen a ghost I wouldn't believe in ghosts, and if I'd never been in love I wouldn't believe in it either. But I've seen the ghost of love, and it haunts me everyday.

[Anonymous No.5885699]

>>5885693
Go ahead and post a scientifically testable definition of "love".

[Anonymous No.5885702]

>>5885698
> But I've seen the ghost of love, and it haunts me everyday.
you sound like such a fucking faggot, you know that right?
but w/e. i want details.
what went wrong?

[Anonymous No.5885706]

>>5885699
>still hasn't read the wiki.
do i have to smash you're fucking face into the wiki-screen for you to get off your ass and bloody educate yourself!??

" Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act in a manner similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.[19]"

"Evolutionary psychology has attempted to provide various reasons for love as a survival tool. Humans are dependent on parental help for a large portion of their lifespans comparative to other mammals. Love has therefore been seen as a mechanism to promote parental support of children for this extended time period. Another factor may be that sexually transmitted diseases can cause, among other effects, permanently reduced fertility, injury to the fetus, and increase complications during childbirth. This would favor monogamous relationships over polygamy.[26]"

[Anonymous No.5885710]

>>5885706
I asked you for a scientific definition, not for pseudoscientific explanations of something that hasn't even been defined yet. Please stop pretending to be illiterate and post the definition. The wiki doesn't contain one.

[Anonymous No.5885714]

>>5885710
>asking me for definitions like a moronic child when you're on THE FUCKING INTERNET!
TWAT!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love

[Anonymous No.5885717]

>>5885714
This is a science board and I asked you to post a scientific definition, not a colloquial one. Do you know the scientific method or did you fail to pay attention in your 5th grade science class?

[Anonymous No.5885718]

>>5885689

Care to give some examples?

[Anonymous No.5885720]

>>5885676

Why the fuck are you conflating the concept of love with the concept of "soul mates?" What the fuck are you even talking about?

[Anonymous No.5885724]

>>5885717
scientific definition of love: the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act in a manner similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement

there, happy now!??
so fuck off!

[Anonymous No.5885725]

>>5885717
explain how the universe began

[Anonymous No.5885729]

>>5885720
usually people talk about the 2 terms together and it pisses me off.
if you believe in love, but not soulmates, then great.

if you do believe in soulmates, then fuck off

[Anonymous No.5885736]

>>5885724
What you described is indistinguishable from stress, euphoria and various pathological states of derangement. Your definition is vague and imprecise.

>>5885725
With the big bang. You should watch the tv show of the same name. It's very funny and informative.

[Anonymous No.5885737]

>do you believe in love?
Made me cringe. It's not about beliefs. EEG, MRI, partial (and that's a pity) counter actions of certain drugs, plain irrational behaviour, quite specific complex of symptoms like obsessive focused thoughts, "happiness" depending on other person etc.

>Does it exist, if so in what form(s)?
F63.9, specific neurochemical imbalance.
There're several unclear forms but the mechanism is the same. Ask psychologists, especially Fromm lovers.

>psychiatrist
>inb4 wannabe cold-hearted full-rational "autists"

[Anonymous No.5885740]

>>5885736
>i dont like that definition
cool story, bro.
<<<

[Anonymous No.5885741]

>>5885729
>usually people talk about the 2 terms together

No they don't.

[Anonymous No.5885743]

>>5885718
death.

[Anonymous No.5885747]

>>5885740
It's not a matter of personal preference. Your definition is simply useless in the scientific context. It does in fact not define anything at all because it is too vague and unspecific.

[Anonymous No.5885749]

>>5885743

Double fail. First of all, death is not a mental state. Second, the difference between a live brain and a dead one is certainly a matter of chemical arrangement.

[Anonymous No.5885750]

>>5885747
w/e, believe whatever you want to believe. neuroscientists and psychologists know a fuckload more about it than you do .

[Anonymous No.5885752]

>>5885747

Your mom is too vague and unspecific.

[Anonymous No.5885753]

>>5885750
I know more neuroscience and psychology than you and you still haven't posted a scientific definition. If you want to promote crackpottery, pseudoscience and general anti-intellectualism, /sci/ is the wrong board for you.

[Anonymous No.5885756]

>>5885749
structurally there is no difference between a live and dead brain.

[Anonymous No.5885757]

>>5885753
>I know more neuroscience and psychology than you

Well I know more than YOU and I say you're being willfully dense.

[Anonymous No.5885759]

>>5885757
Please prove it by posting the definition I'm asking for.

[Anonymous No.5885760]

>>5885753
>I know more neuroscience and psychology than you
oh really??
well apparently it's been quite well researched in psychology.
so much for someone who 'knows so much more than me' and doesnt even fucking believe in it!

[Anonymous No.5885762]

>>5885760
Prove me wrong by posting the definition. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Anonymous No.5885766]

>still not realizing this guy is trolling

[Anonymous No.5885767]

>>5885737
If love is a completely a neurochemical imbalance then one could create a drug that makes people fall in love, no?

[Anonymous No.5885771]

>>5885762
>and I say you're being willfully dense.
yeh, so do i
go do your own research on it, faggot

[Anonymous No.5885772]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love

[Anonymous No.5885774]

>>5885766
Who? EK? I don't think EK is trolling. She's genuinely that stupid.

[Anonymous No.5885776]

>>5885767
yeh, i was just wondering about this. wouldnt it mean love potions are technically possible?
i mean ecstasy kinda does, maybe that's the closest we've got for temporary love-potion.

[Anonymous No.5885779]

>>5885771
>ad hominem
Why do you even post when you have nothing to contribute?

>>5885772
What part of "scientific" did you not understand? These colloquial definitions are not rigorously defined and do not allow for experimental verification.

[Anonymous No.5885784]

>>5885774
erm, i'm the one arguing on the side of 'love is real. it's a real emotion and psychological phenomenon.'

it's the other tard who is all: 'love is all made up, lets just disregard decades of psychological research'

[Anonymous No.5885793]

>>5885784
You still haven't posted a scientific definition. Please apply Hitchens' razor to your irrational claims.

[Anonymous No.5885795]

>>5885793
Contribute or leave.

[Anonymous No.5885796]

>>5885784
Psychological research is concerned with observable behaviour and does thus require objective definitions.

[Anonymous No.5885799]

>>5885756
>structurally there is no difference between a live and dead brain.

But that's wrong, you retard.

[Anonymous No.5885802]

>>5885795
I did. The scientific point of view suggests applying Hitchens' razor.

[Anonymous No.5885803]

>>5885779
>These colloquial definitions are not rigorously defined and do not allow for experimental verification.

They work for me. If they don't work for you, that's your problem, not the dictionary's.

[Anonymous No.5885806]

>>5885803
he's just gonna keep saying the same fucking thing and pretending theres no evidence when theres fucking loads of it.

just ignore him, this is as dumb as talking to stubborn creationists who refuse to accept evolution, and refuse to go and look at any of the evidence.

[Anonymous No.5885805]

>>5885803
This is a science board. We use the scientific method. If you want to talk about colloquial trifle, please do it on /b/.

[Anonymous No.5885807]

THE SAME TROLL IS:

1) the one who used to respond to any mention of consciousness with ">>>/x/"
2) the one posting a dozen threads about consciousness a day
3) the one ITT pretending not know what the word "love" means

[Anonymous No.5885809]

>>5885806
I'm not a "he" and I'm merely asking for a definition. Science requires rigorous definitions.

[Anonymous No.5885814]

>>5885809
i dont give a fuck which gender you are, and i've already posted 2 definitions, neither of which was to your liking apparently,and seeing as you're a stubborn imbecile who refuses to actually go and read any of teh fucking research, then i am so done with you

[Anonymous No.5885815]

>>5885807
Being rational is the opposite of "trolling" and I'm not pretending anything. I'm only asking for a scientific definition. And btw I didn't start any threads about /x/ nonsense. Are you perhaps suffering from paranoid delusions?

[Anonymous No.5885819]

>>5885814
You did not post any definition. You posted vague and unspecific ramblings and were called out for your crackpottery. Please either adopt a more scientific approach or stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.5885828]

>>5885815
That's not rational, that's pedantic word-picking. If you had your amigdala improper developed (ad hominem!!1) that's not our problems. You're barely a troll though.
>inb4 wannabe cold-hearted full-rational "autists"
English isn't my native (as for the strict definition of love). Srsly, read at least some psychiatry and neurology for dummies. If you were my patient I would give you clozaril for a week with a smiling face just for you to get rid of that shit in your head. No, not mentall illness. Plain shit.

[Anonymous No.5885836]

>>5885828
The scientific method embraces rationality. This includes applying Hitchens' razor to untestable claims without evidence. I was asking for a scientific definition and evidence but all I got was trolling and fallacies. I can therefore conclude that the original claim was unscientific garbage. Please stop pretending to be knowledgable of a field you clearly know nothing about.

>read at least some psychiatry and neurology for dummies
Unlike you I read actual textbooks.

[Anonymous No.5885844]

>>5885836
>evidence
> EEG, MRI, partial (and that's a pity) counter actions of certain drugs, plain irrational behaviour, quite specific complex of symptoms like obsessive focused thoughts, "happiness" depending on other person etc.

>actual textbooks
Godspeed with your pure math.

[Anonymous No.5885849]

Inb4 someone posts the actual chemical.

[Anonymous No.5885852]

Don't know about love, but the mathematicians who stay single have a greater and more significant work output than those that don't. In fact if my recollection serves me correctly, most important discoveries are made by mathematicians before they get married.

[Anonymous No.5885856]

>>5885836
>Unlike you I read actual textbooks.
undergraduate detected

[Anonymous No.5885883]

>>5885844
Evidence of what? What's your definition? You still haven't posted the definition.

>>5885856
>projecting

[Anonymous No.5885888]

>>5885883
see
http://osakaismaiwaifu.yolasite.com/

[Anonymous No.5885889]

>>5885888
I will not follow that link. It looks suspicious.

[Anonymous No.5885893]

It's just a fucking dopamine rush you idjits
>>5885849
There ya go

[Anonymous No.5885897]

>>5885889
Love has been defined. It is not my fault you are too paranoid to use the Internet and too stupid to use NoScript.

[Anonymous No.5885900]

>>5885893
Not only. Serotonin lowers (sic!) and especially neuropeptide fun.

[Anonymous No.5885901]

>>5885897
Please post the scientific definition in this ITT.

[Anonymous No.5885903]

>>5885900
Mostly dopamine though. That's mostly what infatuation is, and same thing with love for a year before that river starts to run dry.

[Anonymous No.5885904]

>>5885901
>in this in this thread

[Anonymous No.5885908]

>>5885893
>It's just a fucking dopamine rush you idjits

Well, clearly it's not "just" that.

[Anonymous No.5885910]

>>5885908
I meant it's not some magical force or something that a lot of people believe.

[Anonymous No.5885912]

this thread is so romantic. you guys should write a book on dating.

[Anonymous No.5885913]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf7Uo6nqaIg

[Anonymous No.5885915]

>>5885913
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfaoe847qQ

[Anonymous No.5885923]

You guys are all completely insane, lol.

Love is the result of massive amounts of Oxytocin flowing through the brain. This chemical is caused by two things(generally speaking)

Eye contact

and sex.

In the human brain, this chemical is designed to create attachment.

The more you look someone in the eyes, the more you love them

The more you have sex with someone(or engage in any number of sexually related activities(Kissing, hand holding), the more you love them

because of this, it enables a human being to love many many people and things.

"True love" or "Soul mates" are caused because you make eye contact with that person more then any ones
They happen because you hold their hands, and you don't hold other peoples
They happen because you really really like to slip, fall, and land on your partners genitalia over and over again
They happen because you only kiss that one person

There are other people, and other things that we feel love for, other then soul mates, in fact, you love any thing that has eyes that your willing to look into.

Your cat, your dog, your stuffed animal, mommy, daddy, brothers, sisters, best friends, a hooker

You love anything that is willing to touch you.
Your cat, your dog, your stuffed animal, mommy, daddy, brothers, sisters, best friends, a hooker

You "Love" your soul mate because you touch them and look at them more then anything else around.

anyone can be your soul mate, it's just a matter of if that person has right "bait" to get you to look at them more frequently then other people at first, eventually, you just start doing those things because you have formed a larger connection with that entity then any other entity.

You could fall in love with anything, if it had the right bate

Is this a good enough scientific answer for Mr. troll?
Or do you wish to have more? I'm sure i can drag up more.

[Anonymous No.5885924]

>>5885910
>I meant it's not some magical force or something that a lot of people believe.

I don't think anyone ITT, or even most people in general, think it's "magical." But saying it's "just a dopamine rush" is absurdly reductionist. Why would the mere presence of one chemical make you care for a specific person? It's obviously an extremely complicated mechanism, just like anything to do with the brain.

[Anonymous No.5885926]

>>5885924
>It's obviously an extremely complicated mechanism, just like anything to do with the brain

WE HAVE TO REDUCE SOMETHING TO ITS BASE METRIC OR ELSE IT ISNT REAL

[Anonymous No.5885962]

>>5885924
Actualy, most everything in the brain at a basic level is incredibly simple.
It only seems complicated because the things it creates at a high level(thought, sentiance, inteligence) are not understood.

The systems that dictate emotions, how ever, are incredibly simple and well understood.
it's all adrenaline, noradrenaline, serotonin, dopamine,

Love is actualy not an emotion, it is an attatchment
There are emotions associated with love.
But love it's self is not a feeling.
So love it's self is not caused by a dopamine rush, love Causes a dopamine rush, which causes you to be happy.
It causes that rush to reward you for creating a social relationship that will benefit you
Happiness perpetuates love
Not the other way around

[Anonymous No.5885970]

>>5885924
Do you look at a forest as being a trillion trillion plant and animal cells growing out of a complex organic compoud, with several various different in organic minerals protrucding, or do you look at it as a place where trees grow, only looking at the individual cells where nessessary?