Ok, One More Try

[Orbit]

 

The chemicals released when you are in love will never even hint at the subjective feelings you feel as a result. A language other than biology is needed for that. No one in love says "I feel like my oxytocin receptors are being excited".

 

Sure, I may not say that, but I know that at a physical level that's exactly what is happening.  I mentioned the hormones because I was referring to what science has learned about the physical processes from where the subjective feelings emerge, to make the point to Daylight that this is a science vs religion subforum.  A point which, despite the best attempts of several of us, appears to be lost.

 

Sorry to be unscientific about love.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

The chemicals released when you are in love will never even hint at the subjective feelings you feel as a result. A language other than biology is needed for that. No one in love says "I feel like my oxytocin receptors are being excited".

 

Sure, I may not say that, but I know that at a physical level that's exactly what is happening.  I mentioned the hormones because I was referring to what science has learned about the physical processes from where the subjective feelings emerge, to make the point to Daylight that this is a science vs religion subforum.  A point which, despite the best attempts of several of us, appears to be lost.

 

Sorry to be unscientific about love.

 

 

Sorry for being like Sheldon Cooper. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I think the main problem I am having with Daylight's posts is that they include a variety of statements that should really begin with:

 

I believe that...

 

In my opinion...

 

It seems to me that...

 

Maybe...

 

What if...

 

Instead they appear as if they are statements of fact.  When people write in this way, they are making claims about knowledge.  How can we know something if it has not been studied, if there is no evidence to support it?  

 

I was able to stop believing in god, the rainbow bridge, fate, homeopathy, and everything happening for a reason because I started caring about whether beliefs are supported by logic and evidence.  I care so passionately about critical thinking and skepticism that I want to help others learn these skills so they too can get free of unsupported and unsupportable beliefs.  I see that as part of what ex-c is here for and what it can offer people.

 

I hope that as a result of us raising these issues, Daylight has considered them, but if not, I believe lurkers benefit from the discussion.

[Orbit]

My thoughts produce the oxytocin, not the other way around. Just sayin'.

[DayLight]

 

In math, they have to assume that something is true first (because they can't prove it) and then they use the assumption to see if it's working out in real life.  I am making an assumption (through observation) and then will need to see if it seems to be true in reality by more observation.

 

I think that math should be a part of science.  Terms can be modified as people understand more.

 

What da what?

 

What is this thing that math must assume because it cannot prove?  What science does not incorporate math?

 

The assumptions they make in order to create a formula... you have to state things like "this is true just because we will say it's true" and then go on from there to create a formula.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

In math, they have to assume that something is true first (because they can't prove it) and then they use the assumption to see if it's working out in real life.  I am making an assumption (through observation) and then will need to see if it seems to be true in reality by more observation.

 

I think that math should be a part of science.  Terms can be modified as people understand more.

 

What da what?

 

What is this thing that math must assume because it cannot prove?  What science does not incorporate math?

 

The assumptions they make in order to create a formula... you have to state things like "this is true just because we will say it's true" and then go on from there to create a formula.

 

 

Please give us a worked example of this, DayLight.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[DayLight]

I assumed that people know that my statements are my opinions.  

 

It's not science (per your definitions), it's using reason and observations to try to understand life.  I didn't mention anything mystical that I know of.  I just mentioned that here is a possible reason that people behave this way and here is the possible goal which forces this behavior.  So, in a sense, it's like observing a system.  This behavior is a result of some system.  And it's possibly THIS system.  And now let's compare it against reality.

 

A behavior happens for a reason.  So I wanted to see a reason, what kind of ultimate goal is forcing this kind of behavior?

 

Most of the thinking about this subject started with my inner question: "What does it mean to be completely happy"?  What is that?  Under which circumstances is it possible to feel that?  It seems that the whole world is running around in search of that, but it seems to be elusive.  Those who reach to the top tell us that all they feel is emptiness.  They thought they would find happiness there, but it's like a mirage in the desert.

 

So why should people feel empty?  What is emptiness?  What is causing it?  And what will cause happiness?  And so my post was about answers to these questions.  Possible answers.

 

I've realized that the body sends us signals when it is trying to reach towards a goal. It's like a compass.  All people's bodies are basically telling them to search for this elusive happiness. So what does life want to accomplish by this?  Why does the system of life need people to find it?   What will happen when people will find it?  

 

Well, it looks as though people's search for this elusive feeling is what creates the social environment we exist in.  People's search for this feeling is what forces them to come together and glue themselves to objects and things and people.  And this gluing... is the process of formations... it's how life forms the social environment. 

 

To me it was a very cool realization.  Things are complex and I may be wrong.  But that's what I see for the moment.

Interesting to see how search for happiness is actually a creative force (so to speak).

[mymistake]

 

 

In math, they have to assume that something is true first (because they can't prove it) and then they use the assumption to see if it's working out in real life.  I am making an assumption (through observation) and then will need to see if it seems to be true in reality by more observation.

 

I think that math should be a part of science.  Terms can be modified as people understand more.

 

What da what?

 

What is this thing that math must assume because it cannot prove?  What science does not incorporate math?

 

The assumptions they make in order to create a formula... you have to state things like "this is true just because we will say it's true" and then go on from there to create a formula.

 

 

 

You mean things like "the universe is not playing tricks on us when nobody is looking".  Science and math presume that the universe is consistant and we can learn from it.

 

 

Or did you mean things like definitions?  Such as a point, a line and so on - the meaning of words?  If you make claims like that you should explain it.

[bornagainathiest]

I assumed that people know that my statements are my opinions.  

 

It's not science (per your definitions), it's using reason and observations to try to understand life.  To give an explanation and then to go back and see if reality backs it up.  Of course most people won't know what I am trying to say and will dismiss it right off the bat, but I can't do anything about that.  That's how most of the discoveries started.  I am not into details, I am into zooming out and seeing the patterns.  I don't see the individual birds, I see the flocking organism.  I can't give you details on some things, but I just get this sense of "that's how things seem to be working".  And if anyone else can see this, it's great.  If not, oh well.  I am sharing for "just in case". Just in case someone may find this useful in some way and use it as a step ladder to get to some other point.

 

Then what you're posting is your personal philosophy and not science, DayLight.

.

.

.

 

So could you please give us a worked example of how you check to see if reality backs up your explanations of it..?  Thanks

 

And could you also back up your claim (That is how most of the discoveries started) with some worked examples..?  Thanks.

 

It's just that without these examples (the evidence) I'm forced to take what you write on faith.

And as a skeptic, I can't do that.

 

So... examples please.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[DayLight]

No one is discussing my idea, but more like whether I used the correct scientific method or something like that. I am not interested in that.  I am interested in my subject, in the idea itself.  So if no one could see my point (although I think one person did), then I prefer to just move on.

[FarflungWanderer]

The problem is that there's no way for us to discuss your idea, because you are only presenting your own idea with literally nothing but your own personal view of the world.

 

It's like trying to discuss someone's opinion on the color green on how it looks green. There's no way to discuss it.

[Ravenstar]

I think the misunderstanding here is that this is the science forum, we deal in evidence here though sometimes we do postulate hypotheses - but evidence, facts, and preciseness in terminology and/or definitions or at least some measure of the scientific method is required… citations too, are good.

 

What you are postulating is more, umm… philosophical or metaphysical in nature. I'm not sure exactly where it belongs though… maybe theological discussions?

 

Orbit.. oxytocin can work both ways.. it can arise from thoughts, and influence thoughts and emotions.. it can also arise from pheromones and hormonal changes and also physical processes (nursing and sex, childbirth, etc..). Oxytocin has several effects.. only one is the bonding instinct. (partners, mother to child, etc..) It also causes uterine contractions.

 

Oxytocin (/ˌɒksɨˈtoʊsɪn/; Oxt) is a mammalian neurohypophysial hormone. Produced by the hypothalamus and stored and secreted by the posterior pituitary gland, oxytocin acts primarily as a neuromodulator in the brain.

Oxytocin plays an important role in the neuroanatomy of intimacy, specifically in sexual reproduction of both sexes, in particular during and after childbirth; its name comes from Greek ὀξύς, oksys "swift" and τόκος, tokos "birth." It is released in large amounts after distension of the cervix and uterus during labor, facilitating birth, maternal bonding, and, after stimulation of the nipples, lactation. Both childbirth and milk ejection result from positive feedback mechanisms.^[1]

 

Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition,pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors.^[2] For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "bonding hormone". There is some evidence that oxytocin promotes ethnocentric behavior, incorporating the trust and empathy of in-groups with their suspicion and rejection of outsiders.^[3] Furthermore, genetic differences in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) have been associated with maladaptive social traits such as aggressive behaviour.^[4]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

 

 

Serotonin /ˌsɛrəˈtoʊnɨn/ or 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) is a monoamine neurotransmitter. Biochemically derived from tryptophan, serotonin is primarily found in the gastrointestinal tract (GI tract), platelets, and the central nervous system (CNS) of animals, including humans. It is popularly thought to be a contributor to feelings of well-being andhappiness.^[6]

Recent research conducted at Rockefeller University shows, in both patients who suffer from depression and mice that model the disorder, levels of the p11 protein are decreased. This protein is related to serotonin transmission within the brain.^[80]

 

Depletion of serotonin is common between disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, and anxiety. However, Dr. Marazziti and his researchers at the University of Pisa in Italy, found that depletion of serotonin also occurs in people who have recently fallen in love. This leads to the obsessive component associated with early stages of love.^[81]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin

 

 

Dopamine (contracted from 3,4-dihydroxyphenethylamine) is a hormone and neurotransmitter of thecatecholamine and phenethylamine families that plays a number of important roles in the human brain and body. Its name derives from its chemical structure: it is an amine that is formed by removing a carboxyl group from a molecule of L-DOPA.

 

In the brain, dopamine functions as a neurotransmitter—a chemical released by nerve cells to send signals to other nerve cells. The brain includes several distinct dopamine systems, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior. Most types of reward increase the level of dopamine in the brain, and a variety of addictive drugs increase dopamine neuronal activity. Other brain dopamine systems are involved in motor control and in controlling the release of several other important hormones.

 

Several important diseases of the nervous system are associated with dysfunctions of the dopamine system.Parkinson's disease, a degenerative condition causing tremor and motor impairment, has been related to the loss of dopamine-secreting neurons in the midbrain area called the substantia nigra. There is evidence that schizophrenia involves highly altered levels of dopamine activity, and the antipsychotic drugs that are frequently used to treat it have a primary effect of attenuating dopamine activity. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder(ADHD) and restless legs syndrome (RLS) are also believed to be associated with decreased dopamine activity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine

 

 

Anyone who has looked into mental illness is aware that neurochemicals are not just a product of our thinking but seriously affect our thinking and emotions as well as basic health and social behaviour. Depression, ADHD, bi-polar disorder, and schizophrenia are all disorders of neurochemicals and their balance - too name but a few.

 

Love as an emotion is a byproduct of our body chemistry. Love as a social activity or choice is a byproduct of our evolutionary inheritance as a social species.

[DayLight]

For your hypothesis to work it would have to be measurable. Is love measurable? Does it have substance.. or an effect? (like gravity)

 

 

Biologically speaking it's explainable - but I think you are going into the realm of metaphysics here.

 

 

What "substance" gravity has? It's just rules describing how something affects another.  If that's substance, then love system (not emotion) definitely has substance.

[DayLight]

The problem is that there's no way for us to discuss your idea, because you are only presenting your own idea with literally nothing but your own personal view of the world.

 

It's like trying to discuss someone's opinion on the color green on how it looks green. There's no way to discuss it.

I didn't think that's a right analogy.  There are a bunch of statements which I made which people could agree or disagree with and explain why.

[bornagainathiest]

 

For your hypothesis to work it would have to be measurable. Is love measurable? Does it have substance.. or an effect? (like gravity)

 

 

Biologically speaking it's explainable - but I think you are going into the realm of metaphysics here.

 

 

What "substance" gravity has? It's just rules describing how something affects another.  If that's substance, then love system (not emotion) definitely has substance.

 

 

Try jumping off a bridge and seeing if the rules apply to you or not, DayLight.

 

That which you can't opt out of is REAL, even if you don't believe it is.

 

Gravity is REAL and not just some rules describing reality.

.

.

.

But hey!

Don't take that from me by faith... perform an empirical test for yourself!

[FarflungWanderer]

Just make sure it's a short fall, okay?

 

The only difference between science and dicking around is writing it down afterwards, and you can't do that if you're a pancake.

[DayLight]

 

 

For your hypothesis to work it would have to be measurable. Is love measurable? Does it have substance.. or an effect? (like gravity)

 

 

Biologically speaking it's explainable - but I think you are going into the realm of metaphysics here.

 

 

What "substance" gravity has? It's just rules describing how something affects another.  If that's substance, then love system (not emotion) definitely has substance.

 

 

Try jumping off a bridge and seeing if the rules apply to you or not, DayLight.

 

That which you can't opt out of is REAL, even if you don't believe it is.

 

Gravity is REAL and not just some rules describing reality.

.

.

.

But hey!

Don't take that from me by faith... perform an empirical test for yourself!

 

I didn't say it wasn't real.  It's real. The question is: what is it really?

 

When an apple fell from the tree, was it really some invisible force (called gravity) which was pulling on it?  Or is there some law of physics which says that things will go downward rather than upward, unless a force is applied to push them upward?

 

In places where there is no gravity, what made it stop?  Wouldn't that be laws of physics?  They would say something like: in this area, things do not go downward, but do such and such instead...

[DayLight]

The subject of how a human functions is extremely complex.  I was trying to kind of zoom out and just see the overall resulting behavior.  Otherwise, if you look too close, your head is spinning and you can't see anything.   I thought if I could draw an outline of the very zoomed out view, maybe that will help me to have a certain picture in mind and use that picture to start zooming back in and interpret the details.  So I am proposing that it is so, just to use it as a tool to get further.   I can't really learn much by reading books.  I learn by writing and discussing.  People's feedback usually triggers my thoughts to go into a certain direction and to learn more.  So thank you for the help (although I could do without attacks).

 

It think it was a great discovery that hormones (or other chemicals) are responsible for creating emotions. 

 

Well, I see emotions as physical sensations.  So like when you feel hot and your heart is racing and you feel pressure in your head - that could be excitement.  But then again, you may think you are sick.  So when do people perceive this as excitement and when do they perceive this as being sick?

 

Maybe if the sensations are related to an idea or a person (let's have an outing, or a person you like is near by), then you interpret it as excitement.  But if nothing happened to cause excitement and you experience these sensations anyways, you would perceive it as being sick?

 

People believe that hormone imbalance can cause depression.  And eating a pill could make you happy.  Ok.   But also thinking a nice thought could make you happy too.  And hearing bad news could make you feel depressed.

 

So that means that both thoughts and/or pills could make you happy.  Both thoughts and/or pills can trigger emotions (aka: physical sensations).

 

I think it makes sense how a thought would trigger it, right?  In response to a thought, which is a symbol of some event, the body tells itself to activate certain chemicals... and as a result of that you will feel certain physical sensations.

 

I heard that pills are actually messages.  So then I am assuming that when you take a pill, you are sending a "thought" in a pill form to your body to activate certain chemicals and to create physical sensations.  (Well, pills are designed to do something to a body, to decrease that or increase that.. and it does it by telling something to decrease that or increase that, right?  So, this is how pills would be messages.)  To be a little funny, a pill could actually be a doctor's thought sent into your body.  Pills are like pre-made thoughts.  Like writing different messages on pieces of paper and then using each piece when necessary.  So pills are prepared messages.  So when the doctor wants to change your depression, he uses one of these pre-made messages and sends it into your body through the pill.  (So since he is not Spock and can't do it through "my mind to your mind" technique, he sends a "mobile" thought, through a pill.)  I don't know, I thought this was kind of cool.

 

But then why couldn't we just tell our bodies to activate or deactivate certain chemicals?  We have a direct communication with our body.  Or maybe we don't.  We just observe what our body does, but we don't really have much say in what it wants to do.  It kind of just does what it wants.  It learns of course.  So the environment can change its behavior.  But rarely can a person change it, even if he wants to.  So we just force-feed messages to our bodies through pills.  Or we are learning to change our thinking, having realized that it can also accomplish a similar thing.

 

So what about the hormonal imbalance and people feeling moody and depressed and other things?  If there is no pill or an event/thought to trigger the emotions, how would the imbalance cause the emotions?  Well, I don't know.  I wonder if the food triggers it.  I heard that if you eat certain foods you could feel happier.  Food is probably some sort of messages too (like pills).    If anyone had any ideas...that would be nice.

[RogueScholar]

There are different descriptions of gravity that make astoundingly accurate and precise predictions based on the regime they are used to describe. Newtonian gravity works exceptionally well for most of the "standard" gravity related predictions in our day to day lives. In this model, it can be an "invisible" force so to speak. General relativity doesn't describe gravity as a force in the sense that you understand. However, it's predictions are profoundly accurate and precise on the scales of the universe and under extreme "gravitational conditions."

 

Relativity; however, appears to break down under the most extreme conditions. At this time, gravity can be though to be a force that "particles" experience when they exchange force carrying particles known as gravitons. All of the other fundamental forces can be modelled this way, so it's plausible that this can describe gravity. Even this is a flawed analogy and it will likely be some sort of field theory that will give the best answers. Perhaps some sort of "string" like theory underpins "everything." Who knows?

Ultimately, we have yet to robustly explain gravity under all conditions. This is yet another strength of an honest application of the scientific method. We can admit ignorance.

 

Please describe a place without gravity? What does down and up mean in space?

[DayLight]

When people usually say "love", they mean an emotion of love.   But when I said that love is the creative force, it makes people connect and build structures, I did not mean an emotion of love.  I meant a system of love.  A system is like the wind, it’s invisible and you can only see it by it’s actions (or maybe by the results of its actions.) 

 

Love emotion is a byproduct of this system.  In other words, the system can trigger physical sensations perceived as a love emotion.  

But love emotion is temporary.  It comes and goes.  And yet people still do loving actions even when they don’t feel “loving”.  So it must be the system making them do loving actions regardless of whether they feel the emotion of love or not.

 

So I think that's why a wife says: don't you know that I love you because I cook and clean for you?  And the husband says: don't you know that I love you because I support you financially?     And Christians are taught that to love your neighbor it doesn't mean to feel good about them, but it means to help them, to be kind to them. 

[RogueScholar]

Why would you assume you are sending thoughts when you take a medication? I really urge you to seek educational opportunities beyond a public form where the ability to describe physiological processes is limited. "Thoughts" appear to be an emergent property of complex neurobiological processes. Thoughts are the result of these processes. A medication may alter/modulate these processes and as such alter "thought."

 

I already described the basic process behind how substances can alter neurophysiological processes. A simple receptor analogy works reasonably well.

[RogueScholar]

When people usually say "love", they mean an emotion of love. But when I said that love is the creative force, it makes people connect and build structures, I did not mean an emotion of love. I meant a system of love. A system is like the wind, it’s invisible and you can only see it by it’s actions (or maybe by the results of its actions.)

 

Love emotion is a byproduct of this system. In other words, the system can trigger physical sensations perceived as a love emotion.

But love emotion is temporary. It comes and goes. And yet people still do loving actions even when they don’t feel “loving”. So it must be the system making them do loving actions regardless of whether they feel the emotion of love or not.

 

So I think that's why a wife says: don't you know that I love you because I cook and clean for you? And the husband says: don't you know that I love you because I support you financially? And Christians are taught that to love your neighbor it doesn't mean to feel good about them, but it means to help them, to be kind to them.

I can go to the club tonight, drop some Molly and experience profound feelings of "love." Possibly for complete strangers.

[DayLight]

I think that some say that a body of the mother releases a bonding chemical at some point and that's why mothers are bonded with their children.

 

But it's not true with all mothers.  Why?  Is it because their chemical releasing machines are not working?  Also, some children become "daddy's girl" and so a child and a dad are bonded much stronger than a mother and a child.  This leads me to believe that it's not about releasing chemicals, it's about your body calculating internal instructions to you (each person has their own) and a mother or a father responds to these internal instructions and starts doing it.  Some people say: "I have to help this person". (But they don't know why).  "I have to protect this person" (but don't know why they feel protective).  So it must be some internal command telling them to do it (the body has calculated it and the unconscious knows the reasons, for there must be a reason, things most likely don't just happen randomly, but it just doesn't tell it to the conscious parts).

 

Why some become bonded and some don't?  I believe it's all about beliefs and internal programming and needs.  Some women like to do stuff that comes with nurturing children so they are more prone to become more bonded.  And some don't like it and so their body probably calculates that they just have to do the necessary minimum.  And some don't care and become abusive or completely neglectful parents.  Their brain calculator came up with different conclusions.  For some it's about duty.  For some it's about pleasure.  And maybe more.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

For your hypothesis to work it would have to be measurable. Is love measurable? Does it have substance.. or an effect? (like gravity)

 

 

Biologically speaking it's explainable - but I think you are going into the realm of metaphysics here.

 

 

What "substance" gravity has? It's just rules describing how something affects another.  If that's substance, then love system (not emotion) definitely has substance.

 

 

Try jumping off a bridge and seeing if the rules apply to you or not, DayLight.

 

That which you can't opt out of is REAL, even if you don't believe it is.

 

Gravity is REAL and not just some rules describing reality.

.

.

.

But hey!

Don't take that from me by faith... perform an empirical test for yourself!

 

I didn't say it wasn't real.  It's real. The question is: what is it really?

 

When an apple fell from the tree, was it really some invisible force (called gravity) which was pulling on it?  Or is there some law of physics which says that things will go downward rather than upward, unless a force is applied to push them upward?

 

In places where there is no gravity, what made it stop?  Wouldn't that be laws of physics?  They would say something like: in this area, things do not go downward, but do such and such instead...

 

 

Science argues to the best explanation of the known facts about gravity.

 

That which is unknown can be theorized and modeled and predicted.

 

If the predictions are borne out by fresh data, then these new theories become accepted as evidence-supported scientific facts.

 

Everything else remains speculation.

.

.

.

And you are speculating, DayLight.  Speculation isn't science.

[DayLight]

 

When people usually say "love", they mean an emotion of love. But when I said that love is the creative force, it makes people connect and build structures, I did not mean an emotion of love. I meant a system of love. A system is like the wind, it’s invisible and you can only see it by it’s actions (or maybe by the results of its actions.)

 

Love emotion is a byproduct of this system. In other words, the system can trigger physical sensations perceived as a love emotion.

But love emotion is temporary. It comes and goes. And yet people still do loving actions even when they don’t feel “loving”. So it must be the system making them do loving actions regardless of whether they feel the emotion of love or not.

 

So I think that's why a wife says: don't you know that I love you because I cook and clean for you? And the husband says: don't you know that I love you because I support you financially? And Christians are taught that to love your neighbor it doesn't mean to feel good about them, but it means to help them, to be kind to them.

I can go to the club tonight, drop some Molly and experience profound feelings of "love." Possibly for complete strangers.

 

I think that the best way to describe a feeling of love is the compulsion to take care of the person, to protect them.  I think that's how people know if they love the person or just are attracted sexually. When people are just attracted, they don't really care about the person.

 

So, I am wondering what kind of feeling of "love" would you experience then?  Excitement or the desire to protect and take care of?