Would anyone care to prove that 'love' exists?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

The building codes that the carpentry of your house was required to follow are based on mathematical concepts derived from logical and mathematical proofs.

Same for the calculations that went into figuring out how much water treatment chemical (probably chlorine) should be used: too little and it's not effective; too much and it's a waste of money (probably your tax money); way too much and it's toxic.

The fact that many people are very concerned with "proofs" allows you to consider them a distraction from what you consider important.

 

[weirdpuckett]

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



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?

Think in terms of the wind . . . You cannot see the wind, But you see the trees move. You feel it on your face . . . How does one "see" hate? How does one "see" kindness? Angst? Sadness? Do we deny these things exist because they can't be "seen?"

 

[sandandfoam]

The fact that many people are very concerned with "proofs" allows you to consider them a distraction from what you consider important.

I think Domasio has it nailed re reality,
"These various images - perceptual, recalled from real past and recalled from plans of the future - are constructions of your organism's brain. All that you can know for certain is that they are real to your self" (p97 Descartes Error).

'Proofs' have a place in each of our narratives but neither the truth nor proofs lie around waiting to be picked up and I believe it is a mistake to invest them with an objectivity that does not exist.

BTW I spend a lot of my time in quantitative research so I'm arguably one of those concerned with "proofs" allowing me to consider them a distraction from what I consider important.

 

[ellenjanuary]

In science, a hypothesis is considered validated after consistent experimentation conforms to prediction. There comes a time when further experimentation is simply unnecessary. In the real world, I know of no one who "questions the existence of love," for a very simple reason...

Can you see the love? I contend that every individual may come to define Love, and from that singular ideal, realize love. Whether it is one's children, or one's grandma, or one's Porsche; one will experience a certain je ne sais quoi, and thus understand.

 

[Reptillian]

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

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"?

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?

I would indeed define love as an emotion that has certain observable behaviors associated with it. When Jesus suggests "love for enemies" he means that we should treat our enemies a certain way.

Brain scans show that religious feelings about God are real, and that ideas concerning unicorns exist.

Here are some questions for you. Does the existence of color blind people mean that color isn't a real thing? Does the fact that there are three primary colors which can produce other colors make the combination colors any less real?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Wait - what are you actually after?

Love is an emotion. Regardless of whether that's all it is or not, it is an emotion. If you're really concerned with proving the existence of love, then proving the existence of the emotion "love", then you've proven the existence of love.

You don't need to define a thing completely to prove its existence. As an analogy, to prove that the United States exists, it would be enough to prove that New York exists and that New York is part of the United States. Once you accomplished that, your task would be complete. Anything over and above that (proving the existence of Wyoming, for instance) would be unnecessary for the proof.

Love is an emotion. It may also be "a battlefield", "what makes the world go 'round" or "never having to say you're sorry"... but the question of whether it is all those things is irrelevant. So long as you prove the existence of just one thing that necessarily falls under the umbrella "love", you've proven the existence of love.

 

[Willamena]

Wait - what are you actually after?

Love is an emotion. Regardless of whether that's all it is or not, it is an emotion. If you're really concerned with proving the existence of love, then proving the existence of the emotion "love", then you've proven the existence of love.

For some, at least, emotion is a reaction to stimuli in the world. It follows, in response to, the thing it is "about". From this perspective, the emotional reaction to 'love' isn't necessarily in itself 'love'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For some, at least, emotion is a reaction to stimuli in the world. It follows, in response to, the thing it is "about". From this perspective, the emotional reaction to 'love' isn't necessarily in itself 'love'.

Even in that formulation, isn't love "a reaction to stimuli in the world"? It's still a response to things like kindness or attraction, i.e. it's based on the perception of real things... it's not like love comes bottled in six-packs.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

You feel compassion and pity that he wants to do such a terrible thing. Of course, you may still fear for your own life, but you wish no harm on this person. In self-defense, you may have to harm him, but it will not be from ill-will towards him, but fear for your own life (or some other reason, like duty.) The pain would also be terrible.

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

Love can take many forms, not just the intimate kind felt for close family. So, no, it wouldn't be the exact same emotion, but we don't have words for those other ones in English, so we just use "love" for them all.

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?

Love and hate are two different states of mind, and therefore two different emotions. Sure, both can be felt at the same time, but that doesn't make them the same.

An "act of love" is a phrase that describes an act that is done for someone else's sake, and isn't necessarily connected with the emotion.

That has nothing to do with whether or not "love" exists, but simply a peculiarity of the English language.

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"

I said "many" God-concepts, primarily referring to the ones that view God as a person wholly separate from creation, which many religions do hold. I said "thing" in reference to God only for convenience, because "thing" and "person" are related, with the primary difference being the one refers to something (note: some thing ) with sentience, while the other one doesn't.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

“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? ;-)

If you did not realise the Magnet part was a joke...emotional attachment is what I meant...

 

[Sunstone]

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

Given there are so many definitions of love, I think it is especially important in this case that love be defined by the person asking for proof of it.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I'm under the impression that the only real love is unconditional love. It is an immediate, non-dualistic process of revealing. Almost as a rule, love cannot have any criteria. That's why I find it pointless and absurd to try to deny it by matter of proofing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given there are so many definitions of love, I think it is especially important in this case that love be defined by the person asking for proof of it.

1. "Love" is a score of zero in a tennis game.
2. By the rules of tennis, all games start with a score of zero for both sides.
3. Therefore, the existence of tennis games necessarily implies the existence of zero scores in tennis games.
4. Since tennis games exist, by (3), zero scores in tennis exist.
5. By (1) and (4), love exists.

QED

 

[Willamena]

Even in that formulation, isn't love "a reaction to stimuli in the world"? It's still a response to things like kindness or attraction, i.e. it's based on the perception of real things... it's not like love comes bottled in six-packs.

No; it's a real thing in the world, like kindness and attraction, that is being reacted to ... all based on perception of real things in the world, right.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Love is attachment....no matter how unconditional or deep.

 

[opuntia]

Scientific detachment will never prove love, only by truly loving your neighbor (your family, friends, strangers, enemies) as yourself will love be proven.

 

[Wombat]

Given there are so many definitions of love, I think it is especially important in this case that love be defined by the person asking for proof of it.

Ok...I had two reasons for not doing so-

1/ The question is clearly a chain pull paralell to "Can you prove God exists" and that question is often rendered pointless by a/Not being something that is ever likley to be established by science and b/ a definition by the questioner that puts one in persuit of some>thing< akin to SuperSanta.

2/ I wanted to see how many people held love to be just an emotion, clearly an emotion or exclusively an emotion...for our ancestors may not have shared/ recognised such a definition/feeling at all. (Romantic love is said to be an historicaly recent social construct).

For my money the best (but not exclusive) definition of 'love' comes from (I don't say this often ;-) that great American- Dr M Scott Peck.

Peck defined love as- A preparedness to >do< for others.

I like the definition because it indicates the potential of a love that is not dependent on positive emotional feelings towards another...it opens the door to love that ignores, trancends or acts in spite of the prevailing emotion.

ie- Emotionaly I hate the others guts, he is my enemy and wishes me ill... nonetheless...I am going to jump in the river and save his sorry ***.

Anyone who has been the parent of teenagers may be able to relate to this definition and kind of love

 

[Magic Man]

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 take it this is in response to people asking you for evidence that God exists.

Love exists because there's a feeling that exists that we call love. As you said, you can see the reaction through brain scans. The difference between this and God is that God is supposed to be something other than a brain scan. You're claiming that there is something causing the brain scan, and that something is God. All I'm suggesting is that there's a brain scan, and the action we see in it is what we call love. There is nothing causing the brain scan; the action in it is what we call love.

 

[sandandfoam]

Love exists because there's a feeling that exists that we call love.

Same might be said for God

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Same might be said for God

Certainly god exists as a subjective feeling/concept. Albeit, that's all that it can be shown to exist as.