Would anyone care to prove that 'love' exists?

[Wombat]

Perhaps beginning with a definition that is historically consistent, acceptable to all and followed by empirical data that proves ‘love’ exists?

(Please....No ‘experiential’ or ‘faith’ statements...just the scientific >facts<)
(PS...Brain Scans showing people 'experiencing love'?....they have those for 'experiencing God' too ;-)

 

[weirdpuckett]

Well, for you it obviously has to involve "science" . . ..

I give you the correct answer nonetheless-Love is the supreme force that governs and conquers all things . . .

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Perhaps beginning with a definition that is historically consistent, acceptable to all and followed by empirical data that proves &#8216;love&#8217; exists?

(Please....No &#8216;experiential&#8217; or &#8216;faith&#8217; statements...just the scientific >facts<)
(PS...Brain Scans showing people 'experiencing love'?....they have those for 'experiencing God' too ;-)

Love is attachment.

Simple.

(Magnets love Iron...so they try to attach themselves to Iron)
Hehehe

 

[Willamena]

(Please....No ‘experiential’ or ‘faith’ statements...just the scientific >facts<)

Um, there's nothing unscientific or unfactual about 'experiential' evidence.

 

[Wombat]

Well, for you it obviously has to involve "science" . . ...

Oh....."obviously"............................unless of course I was taking an obviously ironic athiestic stance to love.

I give you the correct answer nonetheless-Love is the supreme force that governs and conquers all things . . .

That is a very nice definition.........but can you prove this " supreme force that governs and conquers all things" (sounds suspiciously like 'god' to me ;-) actualy exists?

 

[sandandfoam]

To the objective it doesn't.
So?

 

[blackout]

Oh....."obviously"............................unless of course I was taking an obviously ironic athiestic stance to love.

OooohOoooh!

*raises hand*

I knew that.

 

[Reptillian]

Perhaps beginning with a definition that is historically consistent, acceptable to all and followed by empirical data that proves ‘love’ exists?

(Please....No ‘experiential’ or ‘faith’ statements...just the scientific >facts<)
(PS...Brain Scans showing people 'experiencing love'?....they have those for 'experiencing God' too ;-)

Are you suggesting that emotions aren't real? You just said yourself that brain scans indicate that feelings have associated brain states, that seems to be a real and objective thing itself. Plus emotions influence behavior so they have real observable consequences.

 

[Riverwolf]

Perhaps beginning with a definition that is historically consistent, acceptable to all and followed by empirical data that proves ‘love’ exists?

(Please....No ‘experiential’ or ‘faith’ statements...just the scientific >facts<)
(PS...Brain Scans showing people 'experiencing love'?....they have those for 'experiencing God' too ;-)

The word "love" is describing an emotion; i.e., a state of mind. It's not a "thing" in the same way that many God-concepts are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps beginning with a definition that is historically consistent, acceptable to all and followed by empirical data that proves ‘love’ exists?

Normally, it's the person asking for the proof that defines the thing to be proven.

 

[sandandfoam]

Are you suggesting that emotions aren't real? You just said yourself that brain scans indicate that feelings have associated brain states, that seems to be a real and objective thing itself. Plus emotions influence behavior so they have real observable consequences.

There's a good argument that emotions are nothing more than constructs.
Consciousness mightn't even be 'real' - Dennett holds the view that consciousness is a conceptual confusion.

 

[Wombat]

“Love is attachment.
Simple.
(Magnets love Iron...so they try to attach themselves to Iron)” Primordial Annihilator


Hmmmmmm.......So a good Dovetail join is ‘love’?....Superglue is love?....My daughter and her mobile phone is love............Hmmmmmmm......possibly...but no 'proof' and not convinced ;-)



“Um, there's nothing unscientific or unfactual about 'experiential' evidence.

If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear?Does anybody hear the forest fall... ~Bruce Cockburn” Willamena



But do we not have to be able to repeat, document and verify the ‘experience’ before it is considered scientific/factual?
If not...what is the distinction between ‘love’ and ‘God’ in 'experiential' evidence/scientific terms?
(PS I *love* Bruce Cockburn.......But...If a man speaks in a forest and his wife is not there to hear him....................Is he still wrong? ;-)

 

[Reptillian]

There's a good argument that emotions are nothing more than constructs.
Consciousness mightn't even be 'real' - Dennett holds the view that consciousness is a conceptual confusion.

We must have different ideas about what "real" is. Constructs are real things. I could argue that my hamster is a construct of my mind based on sensory data. Would you then say that hamsters aren't real? Point is the hamster produces observable effects and can be measured, weighed, and described...even if I only describe it in terms of the effects it has on my brain states. Emotions are useful ideas that help to understand another persons behavior. When a drunk guy at the bar threatens me with a broken beer bottle, I think its safe to assume that there is something real influencing his behavior. I call that thing 'anger'. I can then proceed to understand what I might have done to produce this 'anger' in that individual.

 

[sandandfoam]

We must have different ideas about what "real" is.

I don't believe in real in the objective sense. I think if we follow 'reality' we end up with Dennett, Dawkins and friends.

I think experience is important and that 'proofs' are a distraction.

 

[Caladan]

Perhaps beginning with a definition that is historically consistent, acceptable to all and followed by empirical data that proves ‘love’ exists?

(Please....No ‘experiential’ or ‘faith’ statements...just the scientific >facts<)
(PS...Brain Scans showing people 'experiencing love'?....they have those for 'experiencing God' too ;-)

In the poetic words of one of the greatest miracle makers...

Sonny, true love is the greatest thing, in the world-except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe in real in the objective sense. I think if we follow 'reality' we end up with Dennett, Dawkins and friends.

I think experience is important and that 'proofs' are a distraction.

"Proofs" are why you (hopefully) don't have to be distracted by worry about your roof caving in on you or about getting a bacterial infection from your tapwater and can instead concentrate on "experience".

 

[sandandfoam]

"Proofs" are why you (hopefully) don't have to be distracted by worry about your roof caving in on you or about getting a bacterial infection from your tapwater and can instead concentrate on "experience".

Nope. Carpentry and some chemical I don't know the name of are.

 

[Wombat]

Are you suggesting that emotions aren't real?.

Nope.
Are you suggesting 'love' is by definition an "emotion"? No more no less?

You just said yourself that brain scans indicate that feelings have associated brain states, that seems to be a real and objective thing itself. .

Thinking about/feeling/experiencing- 'love' or 'God' will "have associated brain states" that show up on "brain scans" and the brain scans are "real and objective things".

But if I get a brain scan of thinking/feeling/experiencing Unicorns.....do Unicorns become "real and objective things"?

Plus emotions influence behavior so they have real observable consequences.

Indeed.
But have we satisfactorily (to all) defined ‘love’ as an “emotion”? One of the common objections to the notion of God is that there is no singular universal definition.........do we have one for love?

And....on what basis can we detirmine that the "behavior" and "consequences" we observe are not to be attributed to some other emotion/influence/motivation?

 

[Alex_G]

Perhaps beginning with a definition that is historically consistent, acceptable to all and followed by empirical data that proves ‘love’ exists?

(Please....No ‘experiential’ or ‘faith’ statements...just the scientific >facts<)
(PS...Brain Scans showing people 'experiencing love'?....they have those for 'experiencing God' too ;-)

I think love is a descriptive word for that attachment we have to another, that exceeds all from known experience. On a side point, I think this explains the teenage crush, where one can with certainty profess love for a girlfriend or boyfriend, only to realise it wasn’t love later in life. In all reality it was love for your teenage self at the time, being the highest attachment one has felt in life up to that point. It is later put into perspective.

From a more scientific angle, we live in the era of the genome, so many things have been illuminated and answered by its discovery, but what we must remember is that the human brain consists of approximately 100 billion neurons, each with tens of thousands of connections, making the number of possible permutations exceedingly high. There are about 1 million times as many connections in your brain than your genome has letters.

This huge wealth of information moves us away from ‘we are our genes’ thinking, and has made us wonder what is locked in the connections of the brain, be it memories, intellect, or even personality?

They call these neural maps of connections ‘connectomes’, and only 1 has been fully analysed as far as I know, that of a small worm, with a mere 300 neurons. It would take technologies we don’t have yet to work at our human equivalent.

Back to the question at hand, I think love is integral to ones connectome, the feeling of a jigsaw like fit to another’s. With what we know about the brains plasticity and adaptive capabilities, such a person would be written into the connectome, creating a bond that is very strong indeed. Such would explain the grieving process, and the delay we have in recovering from loss of a loved one. Something not too dissimilar from phantom limb.


Of course everything is only theory at this stage, whilst we lack the capabilities of analysis.

 

[Wombat]

The word "love" is describing an emotion; i.e., a state of mind..

Ok......So, when confronted with the injunction to "Love thine enemy"...what would be the "state of mind"?
After all he is my "enemy", wishes me harm, possibly mortal harm and I in turn may feel likewise to him.

Is this invitation/injunction to 'love' an invitation to an "emotion"? The same kind of emotion I feel towards my wife/children?

I ask the question because I suspect the very notion "Love thine enemy" indicates that love may not be (exclusively) "describing an emotion" or even as best definition "describing an emotion".

Love may indeed be a "a state of mind"...but it may be, at its best, a state of mind that trancends the prevailing emotion.

The prevailing emotion may be anger or hatred....and yet there may still be the 'act' of 'love' (On Edit. perhaps better phrased as- a loving act ;-)
No?

It's not a "thing" in the same way that many God-concepts are.

Hmmmmmmmm.....I would suggest that one of the major central themes of the major faiths is trying to reject, avoid, get away from the "thingyness" of "God concepts"