Would anyone care to prove that 'love' exists?

[Magic Man]

Oh that's good...because some people seemed to be suggesting that just because the Neuroimaging registers a response to particular stimuli (ie word/notion- 'love', 'God', ect) that the stimuli was thereby identified as a "real thing".

The only "real things" we have on the table thus far are the brain and brain scans..........and neither prove love or God...just that the brain responds when these notions are evoked.

OK, you're not really listening. Yes, the only thing we can prove is that people have the feelings, and that's what's shown in the brain scan. That proves love exists because that's all love is. Love is not an outside entity acting on us. Love is that feeling that we see in the brain scan. God is not that activity we see in the brain scan, according to most. God is some kind of real being that is causing that brain scan according to them. So, we know they have the feeling they say is caused by God, but we don't know that God is what's causing the feeling. However, love is the feeling. We know love exists because we have the feeling.

You are assuming that we/all humans would know if our behaviour was motivated by love or self interest or lust or posessiveness or Ataraxis or Co dependance or power/controll.
I've worked in the Welfare Sector long enough to see a lot of bizzare "behavior and consequences" (knowingly and unknowingly) palmed off as "love"...when in fact it was abuse.

So, no, there can be lots of reasons and motivations for "behaviour" and "calling" the reason 'love' does not make it so....nor provide any proof of its existance.

I'm not sure how else to explain this, or whether it really matters. We have emotions and feelings. We know they exist because we see people having them. Love is one of those things. Maybe sometimes people mistake lust for love or something, but there is a feeling we call love. If people are beating someone up and calling them nasty names; you can call their feelings anger and hatred. If someone is married to someone else, and treats them very well and is intimate with them and loyal to them, you can call their feeling love.

 

[Magic Man]

No...not all theists do so...nor most scriptures...many deny and reject any 'form' 'substance' or 'thingyness' in regard God. Some even reject a pronouncable name in the effort to debar the conception of "thing".

That's fine, but they still assert that whatever this God thing is that doesn't have "substance" or "thingyness" is some kind of real thing. Otherwise they wouldn't worship it.

Anyway, let's keep this to one god-concept at a time, and not equivocate. For all intents and purposes, god is some sort of supreme being that exists in the universe in some form. That's what we're talking about.

>Some people< may do as you describe and talk " about an actual being" and others would consider that as shallow, inacurate and unrepresentative of God as saying 'love' is just sex.

For some talking about God is explicitly "talking about their feelings or emotions" and for them 'God is love'.

Good for them. Then their God is real, but then they shouldn't be using the term "God", since that's not what it means. If their god is love, then they should just call it "love", not "God".

It's not good to try to use all definitions of God as if they're the same. Generally when you talk about God, you're talking about some sort of supreme being that exists in the universe, and probably created it. That's the concept people are opposing when they want you to prove your god. If you want to talk about other god-concepts and not the normal, common one, please make that clear so there is no confusion.

The sticking point appears to be the notions of thing, being, and entity located in space.

Without form or substance God may be a concious 'entity' but problems arise when you attempt to give God a 'geography'-ie "in God's case there is- supposed to be-an outside"
Is the "supposed to be" based on a familiar/common perception?...or drawn from a religious scripture? Because most scripture I am familiar with argues against this "supposed to be".
Likewise 'heaven'
Ask many people where/what 'heaven' is and they will describe a 'place'....problem is scripture indicating "Heaven is within"...and that indicates a condition (perhaps a feeling...perhaps a love)...............not a location.

Is this supposed to have something to do with what I said?

Look, the bottom line is love is a feeling or emotion. We it exists because we either have that feeling or emotion or we can see it from other people. We're not claiming there is some entity called love that causes things; we're saying the brain activity of that feeling is what we call love. God, on the other hand, as commonly understood, is supposed to be something other than just brain activity. That is the difference.

 

[blackout]

Love can be/name/label/represent/stand for SO MANY things
it's akin to calling the Universe God.

 

[Wombat]

OK, you're not really listening. Yes, the only thing we can prove is that people have the feelings,....

In the one sentance you assert I'm not listening and immediatly follow with agreement to something I never said-"Yes, the only thing we can prove is that people have the feelings..." No, I never said such a thing and No we cannot prove that "people have the feelings"

...and that's what's shown in the brain scan.

No...it's not...and that's why I tried to head this cul de sac of nonsense off in the very first post.

What is "shown in the brain scan" is the brain responding to particular stimuli...it "shows" which part of the brain responds... it does not show the stimuli- ie it does not >show an emotion< it does not proove an emotional state.

In fact when examining the Neuro scans stimulated by thinking about 'new love/romantic love' it is difficult to distinguish them from those indicating mental illness/obsessive compulsive disorder.

...That proves love exists because that's all love is

Neuroscience does not prove love.
No one has as yet provided proof of love or even considered the potential that, at its highest, tuest and best, it may not even be an emotion....it may be the >preparedness to act on another behalf< in the absence of positive emotion or in spite of negative emotion.

And there's the rub.

'Love' (like God) can not be pinned down and defined, common/shallow perceptions do not suffice...science/Neuroscience does not give us proof- just shows that some peoples brins light up in the same way as some others unders same stimuli....

In the end, in both instances love/God, people experience, believe, have faith, share common perceptions (shallow and deep) and carry on without proof or expectation of proof...............cos it aint rocket science.

Love is that feeling that we see in the brain scan

:thud: No, you are not "seeing" a "feeling" in the "brain scan".

 

[Reptillian]

Did I miss the answers to my questions about color, or did nobody really respond?

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?

So, Wombat, do you consider color to be a real thing? Is my green your red or purple or something? If emotions aren't real, what do you consider reality?

 

[Wombat]

So, Wombat, do you consider color to be a real thing? Is my green your red or purple or something?

When you say-
[youtube]vKj4upY1VYI[/youtube]
YouTube - Split Enz - I See Red

That can be verified by others observing the same color...that color can be isolated and identified by empirical science on a spectrum.

When you say-

"I feel love" that "feeling" you claim to have cannot be verified by others...even by observing your behaviour...it may be love you are feeling/displaying...it may be self interested exertion to a particular end. We the observer have no way of knowing or prooving the feeling you claim (not even Neuroscience). The independent observer takes your claim/display of love/feeling and (on prior experience) calculates 'probability' and from there acts with a degree of faith regarding the integrity of your claim.

If emotions aren't real,

I never said, suggested or inferred such a notion.

When/where did you see me say anything like that?

Was it written in red?

 

[blackout]

MY Purple, is the only color that counts.

 

[chinu]

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

Why some peoples "LOVE" to become only "SCIENTISTS" other than engineer or carpenter ?

(This is the scientific >fact<) for "LOVE".

_/\_Chinu.

 

[Reptillian]

That can be verified by others observing the same color...that color can be isolated and identified by empirical science on a spectrum.

When you say-

"I feel love" that "feeling" you claim to have cannot be verified by others...even by observing your behaviour...it may be love you are feeling/displaying...it may be self interested exertion to a particular end. We the observer have no way of knowing or prooving the feeling you claim (not even Neuroscience). The independent observer takes your claim/display of love/feeling and (on prior experience) calculates 'probability' and from there acts with a degree of faith regarding the integrity of your claim.

My point with color is that I could say that you don't perceive purple in the same way that I do. I could say that when you see purple you're perceiving what I call orange. The objective thing, the frequency of electromagnetic radiation corresponding to purple is much different than the mind's perception of color.

In this case the perception of color is like the feeling of love, and the objective frequency would be like the behaviors indicating love. Its seems odd to me to accept the existence of color but not the existence of love.

I never said, suggested or inferred such a notion.

When/where did you see me say anything like that?

Was it written in red?

It is inferred though since I could use your exact same argument with other emotions like fear or anger to say that they aren't real. It seems irrational to accept that emotions like fear are real but not to accept the reality of love.

 

[crocusj]

So, no, there can be lots of reasons and motivations for "behaviour" and "calling" the reason 'love' does not make it so....nor provide any proof of its existance.

Are you sure about that? Is there not an assumption there that love is always a good thing? Just this morning I was reading an interview with a mother (in jail) who had smothered her children to avoid them being taken into care. She said she had done so out of love for them and loved them still. I have no reason to doubt that her love for her children is the same as my own for mine....her reason and motivation are obviously warped but her emotion might well be true, indeed her actions would indicate that this was the case. Love may not exist but it sure can be dangerous.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Love can be/name/label/represent/stand for SO MANY things
it's akin to calling the Universe God.

Love is attachment nothing more...

 

[Wombat]

My point with color is that I could say that you don't perceive purple in the same way that I do..

Diverse perception, variation in color definition...and? Like love we have differing perceptions/definitions...just makes the thing claimed to be seen/experienced harder to pin down. Doesn't mean your not seeing red/feeling love/displaying love or that it does not exist...but how are you going to prove it?

If I'm blind to color your color claim/experience means nothing to me. If I'm blind to love your love claim/experience means nothing to me. If I'm blind to God your God claim/experience means nothing to me.

I could say that when you see purple you're perceiving what I call orange.

You could "say" anything...But how would you know what I'm perceiving or I what your perceiving? Even if our perceptions matched...there may be many that differ...and majority perception does not constitute proof.

In this case the perception of color is like the feeling of love, and the objective frequency would be like the behaviors indicating love. .

Hard to fake or self decieve with the spectrum of light or see motive for doing so.
" behaviors indicating love"?........"Honey you've got beautiful blue eyes"... behavior indicating love? behavior indicating lust? behavior indicating forgot
anniversary? behavior indicating color blindness?
How would you determine/prove one from the other?

Its seems odd to me to accept the existence of color but not the existence of love..

It seems odd to me to repeat the notion that denial of the existence of love has been made when that assertion has already been rejected and quote requested.

To say there is no proof is not to say there is no existence...the latter does not follow the former.

It is inferred though..

No. It is not inferred or suggested. To say that something is not proven is not to say, suggest or infer that something does not exist.
Some things are just not subject to ‘proof’...love is one...God another...add humour to the list.
Care to prove something is funny?
I believe love, God’n humour all exist and think it’s funny that people expect proof of God...but I can’t prove any of these notions nor have I seen anyone do so.

... since I could use your exact same argument with other emotions like fear or anger to say that they aren't real. It seems irrational to accept that emotions like fear are real but not to accept the reality of love.

Last time/last try...
Nobody said or suggested "that they aren't real"...just that they (emotions) are wide open to falsification and self deception and what is "really" going on cannot be determined or proven. "Anger"?...I work with adolescent victims of trauma...the behaviour that manifests as anger may be just that...but it also may be attention seeking, or frustration, or supressed and internalised grief....it's difficult to tell and impossible to prove one way or the other.........just like love and God.

 

[Wombat]

Are you sure about that? Is there not an assumption there that love is always a good thing?.

Yea....pretty sure. Seen enough dysfunctional abusive relationships and spouse/child abuse all held together and performed in the name/claim of love.
More often what is going on is power, controll, manipulation, Co dependance, fear, habbit and willfull ignorance. Thinking it's love, calling it love is often a deception of self and others to maintain the status quo.

Just this morning I was reading an interview with a mother (in jail) who had smothered her children to avoid them being taken into care. She said she had done so out of love for them and loved them still. .

Sad.....but sadly not a unique event.
Having seen State 'Care' at its worst I have a great deal of empathy for the mother.
The State can provide but cannot 'love'. In some States in Australia it is recognised that a child may well be better of being subjected to some/low level of domestic abuse than be in State Care.
The sick joke in Welfare goes- "What is the differance between Child Protection and a Bull Terrier?".....Answer- "A Bull Terrier will eventually let go of your child".

But is it love to kill your own children in such circumstances? I don't believe so.
Fear, desperation, hoplessness and more than likley some form of mental illness... but no...not love. If a loved one was in constant untreatable pain Euthanasia may well be a loving option.
But bad as it can be State Care is not torture...seperation is not absolute...and killing kids is not the loving option.

 

[Wombat]

Love is attachment nothing more...

Is it possible to act with love towards someone for whom you have no "attachment"? A total stranger?

Is it possible to act with love towards someone who repulses you? Or towards someone you hate/hates you?

Can acting with love transcend "attachment" and/or negative emotion?

 

[Magic Man]

In the one sentance you assert I'm not listening and immediatly follow with agreement to something I never said-"Yes, the only thing we can prove is that people have the feelings..." No, I never said such a thing and No we cannot prove that "people have the feelings"

Oh, so you don't even accept that people have feelings? How not? Do you also not accept that we know that people exist?

No...it's not...and that's why I tried to head this cul de sac of nonsense off in the very first post.

What is "shown in the brain scan" is the brain responding to particular stimuli...it "shows" which part of the brain responds... it does not show the stimuli- ie it does not >show an emotion< it does not proove an emotional state.

It doesn't have to show the stimulus. For instance, if you display the reactions of someone who's in love, I don't need to know who you're in love with to know you're in love. With the brain scan, it doesn't matter what the person loves, but the brain scan is the viewing of the emotion happening.

In fact when examining the Neuro scans stimulated by thinking about 'new love/romantic love' it is difficult to distinguish them from those indicating mental illness/obsessive compulsive disorder.

I'm not sure about that, but that's why I wouldn't even have talked about brain scans unless you brought them up. You don't even need brain scans to see that love and other emotions exist.

Neuroscience does not prove love.
No one has as yet provided proof of love or even considered the potential that, at its highest, tuest and best, it may not even be an emotion....it may be the >preparedness to act on another behalf< in the absence of positive emotion or in spite of negative emotion.

And there's the rub.

'Love' (like God) can not be pinned down and defined, common/shallow perceptions do not suffice...science/Neuroscience does not give us proof- just shows that some peoples brins light up in the same way as some others unders same stimuli....

In the end, in both instances love/God, people experience, believe, have faith, share common perceptions (shallow and deep) and carry on without proof or expectation of proof...............cos it aint rocket science.

:thud: No, you are not "seeing" a "feeling" in the "brain scan".

As you say, this isn't rocket science. I understand you want to complicate it and use all kinds of confusing sentences, but it's very simple. Love is defined as an emotion or feeling. We can see that it exists because we can see people display the feeling, just as we can see them display anger and hatred. Those displays are the reason we use the word love. All we're doing is describing reactions we have. If that's all people did with God, there'd be no claims of some being called God existing. People would describe their experience that they claim was caused by God.

Generally atheists don't deny that people have the experiences they attribute to God, just that there is no God to attribute them to. In the same way, I know that people experience love and other emotions because I can see them experiencing them. I just would have to doubt the existence of Cupid or an entity outside of us called "Love".

I hope that explains it well enough for you to finally understand.

 

[Magic Man]

I think what you're confusing here, wombat, is the idea that people have something they call love, but we can't tell whether it's actually love or something else. That misses the point. We know they're experiencing emotions based on their actions. Those actions tell us what they're experiencing. If they're beating someone up and insulting them, we call that anger, rage and/or hatred. If someone is married to someone else, and treats them very well, we call that love. We aren't talking about some entity that's causing them to do those things. We're talking about those actions themselves.

 

[crocusj]

But is it love to kill your own children in such circumstances? I don't believe so.
Fear, desperation, hoplessness and more than likley some form of mental illness... but no...not love. If a loved one was in constant untreatable pain Euthanasia may well be a loving option.
But bad as it can be State Care is not torture...seperation is not absolute...and killing kids is not the loving option.

My point is though that love is therefore in the heart of the lover. Is it for you to say that someone does or does not not feel love. From the outside (of anybody) it is obviously possible to identify a mental problem. The fact that said mental problem is greatly exacerbated by a strong emotion such as love does not negate the love. If there was no love the problem might not exist, that the "perpetrator" feels love means that the problem becomes manifest ergo love is in the air.

 

[Willamena]

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

"Love" is being in relation that attracts. Everything loves everything else --like the way company is well loved by misery. It's antithesis is "hate", which is being in relation that repells. Everything also hates everything --like the way misery is repelled by company.
"Definition" is to give form and meaning to something.
"Empirical data" is information gathered through observation, experience and experimentation.
"Evidence" is a bit of information that serves as an indicator of a thing.
"Proof" is that bit of evidence that convinces one of the truth of a thing.
And finally, "existence" is the axiomatic acceptance of being, i.e. to be.

So... the proof that "love" exists is that bit of evidential information that convinces one that being in an attraction relation to other-being should be axiomatically accepted. Well, here's me... There's you...

 

[Dan4reason]

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 ;-)

Love is an emotion which connects you with other people and helps you like them. People with love toward others will do things for them even though it is not for their self-interest. My mother had spent tens of thousands of dollars of me and hundreds of hours of time on me so the people often show the effects of love. I have felt love myself and so I know that it exists for me. Since I know that I am anatomically simmilar to other humans and I see others also exibit the signs of love I experience, I can say that love exists as an emotion.

 

[PolyHedral]

Everything loves everything else...Everything also hates everything...

Ouch. Can I please have my English language back?