Evidence for the Existence of Love

[Heyo]

Yet no dictionary comes right out and defines it as an emotion. One must draw parallels to come to that conclusion.

Here's an interesting article for anyone interested who contends that love is an emotion...

Love Is Not an Emotion

Discover the true nature of romantic love and its impact on society. Explore the physiological drive behind love and its addictive qualities. Uncover the confusion between love and emotion, and the consequences it brings. Don't miss this insightful article on the urgent need to redefine love in...

www.scirp.org

I tend to agree that it's a physiological motivation rather than an emotion. Love can drive emotional responses, but again, I strongly disagree that it's an emotion in and of itself.

"By its extraordinary characteristics, love has been widely regarded by scientists as an emotion (an event-focused process), feeling, affective state, cluster or emotional prototype, and is common as an element, and as a gauge element in the evaluation tests of emotions" - from your link

So we have what I and others have said: until now love has been defined as an emotion (feeling, etc.). Burunat and you are trying to redefine it, going against common wisdom.

That may all be interesting to researchers in psychology but it is very esoteric regarding our question. Whether it is an urge or a feeling doesn't change that it is some process in the brain that can be measured by fMRI or chemically (level of oxytocin) and observed in behaviour.

And unless you are defining gods as processes in the brain, you can't compare gods to love.

 

[Heyo]

Subjective experiential evidence, yes.

Or were you trying to build a straw man for objective evidence?

There is no such thing as subjective evidence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There is no such thing as subjective evidence.

There is no such thing as objective experience, therefore all evidence is gathered and analysed subjectively.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And unless you are defining gods as processes in the brain, you can't compare gods to love.

You are confusing things that register in the brain, with things that originate there. This is the danger of reductive materialism, that the map gets mistaken for the territory.

 

[SalixIncendium]

"By its extraordinary characteristics, love has been widely regarded by scientists as an emotion (an event-focused process), feeling, affective state, cluster or emotional prototype, and is common as an element, and as a gauge element in the evaluation tests of emotions" - from your link

You cherry picked this from the introduction to the article. It is in no way the conclusion of the research in the article.

So far we have two logical fallacies and a cherry picked sentence from an article. If you intend to continue to try to support your position with such deception, I'm not inclined to continue this discussion.

And unless you are defining gods as processes in the brain, you can't compare gods to love.

I'm defining gods as gods, love as love, and experiences of each as a process of the brain. In that capacity, I most certainly can.

 

[exchemist]

See post #48. Furthermore, I'm not finding any dictionary definitions that agree with this. I've checked Cambridge, Collins, and M-W.

Very well, emotion is not quite the word, but my OED gives as the first meaning: “that disposition or state of feeling with regard to a person which manifests itself in solicitude for the welfare of the object and usually in delight in his presence and desire for his approval: warm affection, attachment.”

There is then a religious meaning and then, thirdly, a broader meaning: “ strong predilection, liking or fondness for, or devotion to, something.”

All these meanings presuppose a conscious entity of some kind, capable of feeling. You cannot say this of inanimate objects.

 

[Heyo]

You are confusing things that register in the brain, with things that originate there.

I'm not. In fact, like you, I'm pointing out the difference.

 

[Heyo]

You cherry picked this from the introduction to the article. It is in no way the conclusion of the research in the article.

It is, like I pointed out and the author clearly states, the current consensus. His research tries to change that. But at the time it is an, as yet, unaccepted alternative hypothesis.

So far we have two logical fallacies

I missed you pointing those out.

and a cherry picked sentence from an article.

"This widespread misinterpretation of love as an emotion has several causes, and unfortunately it is an error which has been consolidated and disseminated by science."
"Love has been dissected with extraordinary precision by scientists and also by poets, but nevertheless Western societies consider love to be an emotion optionally accompanying sexuality."
"This article aims to show the necessity to eliminate romantic love, hereafter referred to as love, from the list of emotions, not only in the scientific field, but also in the cultural and social field too."

Burunat repeats it three times more and the last sentence is his mission statement: he wants to change the accepted definition of love. I.e. he accepts that the current definition is as an emotion. He thinks that's wrong but him stating it doesn't make it so.
So, no "cherry picking" here - except you can point to the literature that unequivocally confirms Burunat's opinion as the new consensus.

But again, this is just a side note, it doesn't change the main point.

If you intend to continue to try to support your position with such deception, I'm not inclined to continue this discussion.

I know that language and logic are difficult. I forgive you mistaking my valid points as deceptions.

I'm defining gods as gods, love as love, and experiences of each as a process of the brain. In that capacity, I most certainly can.

As @RestlessSoul pointed out:

You are confusing things that register in the brain, with things that originate there.

You have to answer the following to see whether gods and love are comparable:

Does love originate in the brain or is it an external entity that gets registered in the brain?
Do gods originate in the brain or are they external entities that get registered in the brain?

The two are only comparable if you answer both questions the same.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is, like I pointed out and the author clearly states, the current consensus. His research tries to change that. But at the time it is an, as yet, unaccepted alternative hypothesis.


I missed you pointing those out.

"This widespread misinterpretation of love as an emotion has several causes, and unfortunately it is an error which has been consolidated and disseminated by science."
"Love has been dissected with extraordinary precision by scientists and also by poets, but nevertheless Western societies consider love to be an emotion optionally accompanying sexuality."
"This article aims to show the necessity to eliminate romantic love, hereafter referred to as love, from the list of emotions, not only in the scientific field, but also in the cultural and social field too."

Burunat repeats it three times more and the last sentence is his mission statement: he wants to change the accepted definition of love. I.e. he accepts that the current definition is as an emotion. He thinks that's wrong but him stating it doesn't make it so.
So, no "cherry picking" here - except you can point to the literature that unequivocally confirms Burunat's opinion as the new consensus.

But again, this is just a side note, it doesn't change the main point.

He also goes on to go into detail of the view of love being defined as an emotion is erroneous and describes the causes.

I know that language and logic are difficult. I forgive you mistaking my valid points as deceptions.

Your veiled attack on my intelligence is adorable.

As @RestlessSoul pointed out:

You have to answer the following to see whether gods and love are comparable:

Does love originate in the brain or is it an external entity that gets registered in the brain?
Do gods originate in the brain or are they external entities that get registered in the brain?

The two are only comparable if you answer both questions the same.

Again, the purpose of this thread is not to compare gods to love, but to compare the validity of the subjective experiences of them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But yet it clearly produces many wonderful things in the world outside of the mind, does it not?

That depends on what you mean by mind. If by mind you mean the heart in the deeper sense of something before and beyond consciousness thought, then certainly, it does manifest itself through the heart, or takes shape or form through the heart. But would anything be seen or know if it weren't for some process through forms?


Yet, we do envison love that way, and speak of it as a "thing", even if we are aware it isn't some disembodied spirit floating around getting sucked into the fans and thrown out through us?

We do understand it in terms of an "energy" from within us, from others, and exchanged between us, don't we? We don't have a problem with understanding that, do we?

Metaphorically speaking, poetically speaking, we may speak of love, or Wisdom in terms of an object, or a person, for the point of communicating abstract ideas of intangible, but real things. We do this all the time in human language, and only the very young or concrete-literalists for whom imagination is a strain, can't understand the use of language like this.

Could it be that it's not an issue that God isn't real, but with their inability or lack of vision to see the subtle and think of it outside of concrete literalism?

There's a lot of 'we' in this post that doesn't reflect my views. I dont believe love produces anything. We, the minds that have the concept of love produce things utilizing concepts. This is no different to me than any other emotion, or artistic product.

People might use poetic language about love being a separate force that does things, but to say that not viewing love as an external agency is contrarian or being 'very young' is not helpful.
I could tell you that pain sometimes breaks down my door and enters unexpected and uninvited but you recognize instantly that the metaphore isn't suggesting pain is a 'real' in the sense of independent external entity, it's a process of mind I've given characterization to evoke a feeling, another process of mind.

If God is that to you, a process of mind that doesn't exist outside the mind, then I'd say thats not what most theists think of.

 

[osgart]

Love is not an emotion. It is an understanding founded on relationship. The affect is to care about someone. The emotions change. It's freely chosen. It cannot be coerced, forced, or turned off and on like a switch.

This thread is spiritually bankrupt. Dark, dark world that reduces love to an emotional response as if it comes and goes and fades with the chemical response. Throwing virtue out the window as emotional responses is mere blindness.

Then again there are so many kinds of loves, that the conversation/debate never gets off the ground.

The love that a lot of people know is where something feels good and then fades away. Kinda like a joy ride. That's superficial. Living by emotions is fleeting. Understanding is where real love is found.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why "beyond one's own experiences?"

Well at one time, and probably in the precursors of humans, they had no knowledge of so many things - living in small communities and not moving around that much. So they would probably have little knowledge of various environments and/or that resulting from such - like lightning, earthquakes, and volcanoes, for example. It is highly likely that agency ascribed to some of these might be the precursors of religious beliefs, and that the singular God appeared later on the scene. That is what I mean by a lack of thinking being involved - and allied to a lack of knowledge. We have more knowledge now but still many have far less than they could have and many refuse to look further than their local environment and/or beliefs.

Both occur in the mind. So should we neither trust an experience of god(s) or an experience of love?

If you have not had an experience of god(s), how can you intelligently examine the difference give both experiences are purely subjective?

The concept of God these days is more or less passed on to children from an early age. I doubt it comes to any naturally if there was no education as to such - given that why would one think of such spontaneously when we know there is as much bad as good in life and in our environment, apart from other considerations.

As to the last - how can one know what the mind is accurately telling one, given one can't go back and wipe out what has entered one's mind so as to affect future thoughts and/or feelings? That is, that we might be primed to experience some things as being from God simply because we believe such a concept is possible or even likely.

 

[Heyo]

Your veiled attack on my intelligence is adorable.

I thought the same about your accusation of me using deceptive cherry picking. I guess we are even now?

Again, the purpose of this thread is not to compare gods to love, but to compare the validity of the subjective experiences of them.

But note that it says only something about the spiritual experience, nothing about gods.

That's what I said in the beginning. So we agree after all.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I thought the same about your accusation of me using deceptive cherry picking. I guess we are even now?

Well, one speaks to behavior and intent, while the other speaks to character. But sure. Why not?

 

[Lekatt]

There are many things in life known only through experience. We humans don't come into this life as a blank sheet of paper. We are spiritual beings with a history long before entering physical life. Within we know what love is and recognize it when we experience it. The same with God.

 

[Windwalker]

If you don't understand love to then don't pretend you do.

You mean I don't understand love in the reductionist only sense of the word? That is correct. If that's all it is, then it isn't much at all. Tis but a brain fart.

Eh?

You said cheating is not love. In the same vein, war is not religion. You said that love that acts that way is not real love. And religion that goes to war, is not true religion either.

No,i believe it exists in the mind and it is as real as the electrochemical reaction.

So do I. Where I differ is I don't see it as "only" that.

And maybe it wasn't.

You claimed you've never seen cows worship God. Are you now acknowledging you don't really know if they are or they aren't, and therefore retracting your claim they aren't, and that instead they might be, but you just can't tell? If so, you have acknowledge my very point.

 

[ChristineM]

You mean I don't understand love in the reductionist only sense of the word?

I said what i mean

You said cheating is not love. In the same vein, war is not religion.

And i repeat Eh? Have you actually read the bible?

Where I differ is I don't see it as "only" that.

I don't really care what other way you see love

You claimed you've never seen cows worship

Again i said what i mean, you can add your twists and beliefs all you want, it's nothing to do eith what i said.

 

[We Never Know]

Worst line in a movie ever. Completely false.

The Trojan war ostensibly was. And if not at a city state level, certainly lovers killing those that cheat with their mates is certainly lethal violence.

There we go then. Love isn't real.

You can't say. Therefore, you don't know if cows actually are atheists.

"Love is never having to say sorry"

I agree with that statement. They don't say sorry because they have to, they say it because they love them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We've had several threads that have atheists asking theists for evidence for the existence of God. But that's not what this thread is about.

Do you believe love exists? Why or why not?

Are you able to provide evidence of love? If so, please do so here.

Love is an emotion. Mentally produced.

So like God, it always is sourced back to the brain and nowhere else.

Love and the Brain

They have also been happily married for nearly four decades.

hms.harvard.edu

 

[SalixIncendium]

Love is an emotion. Mentally produced.

So like God, it always is sourced back to the brain and nowhere else.

Love and the Brain

They have also been happily married for nearly four decades.

hms.harvard.edu

You gleaned over the second question.