Well, this claim is not for me, but for Google translator, I'm joking.
I said that it would not be bad to begin to define what "love" is, and then to investigate this phenomenon.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well, this claim is not for me, but for Google translator, I'm joking.
I said that it would not be bad to begin to define what "love" is, and then to investigate this phenomenon.
Oh! Thank you for writing back.
But, please note that is what the psychologists in this study did. They categorized love into two kinds: passionate and companionate. Then, conducted the research :)
Well, how not to get from you the answer to a simple question, what is "love". Is this your post higher? Is it about love?
Hello there again @leonid96 :)
Ow, I see, you think 'what is love?' is a simple question! I am afraid I don't. Perhaps it is because in psychology we see 'love' as having many different meanings. Even if the love in question is romantic love, which, like I said before, in this study has been categorized and defined as:
Passionate - A cluster of feelings that encompasses intense emotions such as lust, excitement, yearning and jealousy.
Companionate - A state associated with milder emotions like commitment, closeness and attachment.
But you see, In some circles, love is not even considered an emotion. But rather, motivation - this is more of a neuropsychological perspective involving the dopaminergic system. The argument for this is the sort of different emotional states elicited by the circumstances; for example, whether it is reciprocated (eliciting euphoria), or not (eliciting sadness).
You could say this post is about love, yes :)
Considering that you appear to be interesting in my very own definition of what love is, well, as a non-romantic, I don't really believe in the kind of romantic love depicted in current entertainment (eg. soaps, movies, series). But, I do think it is an emotion that evolution has cannily worked on to keep us passing on our genetic material and raising our offsprings safely as well as collaboratively.
As for the other question:
I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
Thank you for taking the interest!
Best :)
Thank you, really I was interested in your opinion, as well as scientific. The fact is, there does not seem to be such a scientific concept as love. Probably, most people tend to think this is brain chemistry or the state into which a person "got", as you indicated in your comments.
Romance, like love, and everything related to it, it seems more like a fiction of a man. It was done with the purpose to give a human face a human face, humanize it. I hope, clearly translated the last sentence. If you look at a person from a biological point of view, then this is a machine that performs a certain set of commands. Therefore, attributing to the person, something special type of Love, naming with feelings, as if it comes from within ... well, I do not know, it's not grounded ... not scientifically ...
Everything that happens to us happens in the brain, and it looks like a set of simple commands that control our body. And even if you have a pang in your heart, from the synthetic picture you saw, it is still a consequence of the work of your brain.
Thank you for your answers and comments. Have a good day.
😊
how would you define love? Or in which context have you thought about it?
biologically I would say that a human is an organism that performs relational contact towards his environment of other organisms with which he interdepends. The organism "human" has direct and indirect relations to all other organisms on the planet, be it simple ones or complex ones. Bacteria live in the human body and are being hosted without as well as with some problems. The skin is the interface between the inner and the outer system and it's designed elegantly not to let too much things through but being not too solid as to stay sensitive to touch in this particularly humanly way. One also could say that the bee and the flower is one organism and if you think about it you could actually attribute all of the diverse organisms on earth as one huge organism each and every one of them is interconnected. Some relations are really fancy and peaceful, some aren't. Some are using others to sneak in and some do sacrifice themselves to protect another. Did you know that mushrooms/spores in the ground have a huge net so that they serve as a kind of communication network? ... Oh well ... I digressed :) was just wanting to correct a little the biological description...
How interesting you wrote ...
I know about the fungi that the mycelium can extend to many kilometer, but that they serve for someone as a connection (did I understand you correctly, to communicate information like fiber?) I did not hear ... The mushrooms live together with the tree and serve as part of the nutritional system trees, for certain substances.
It is very accurately noted that everything is interconnected in the world. But I would also say that we are a closed system. And since we are a closed system, one follows from the other or there is a causal relationship between the objects of the system. And deleting one can create a violation and change the direction of the links.
In fact, a person communicates with the outside world not only through the skin. We have 5 senses and, accordingly, feelings. Only through them we communicate with the outside world. And indeed they are all on the surface of our body. Inside us or all life on earth, there are no feelings. About what happens inside us, we do not need to know. But inside there are pain receptors that signal the violation or breakdown of our body.
Our senses are sight - eyes, hearing-ears, taste-mouth, sense of smell - nose and touch (tectile) on the entire surface of our body, including gleams.
If we talk about love, of course it's not true to refer it to feeling. But people would not have used this concept so simply, it means that it is somewhere close, but not correctly marked.
If we talk about our feelings, then they should have gradation, as well as any object determined by the device.
For example, what we see we may like or not be corrected and all this fits, say on a 10-point scale. You can create your own preferences yourself.
I imagine it so, if we talk about love, then this state comes into our brain when what we see, hear, smell, try and touch on our scale goes off scale. The object of adoration is beautiful for all five senses. You can see this by observing the opposite picture, when the love composition begins to pass. Usually, there is a gradual shutdown on one of the senses. For example, you have ceased to like the smell or even become disgusting .... Well, then everything is on the rise ...
Yes, a dialogue about love in another sense can be quite interesting:)
Agreed. I guess you might know then about Autopoeisis?
In my former comment I was more referring to the use of language of yours
It shows an influence of the mechanistic view on a system, a mechanical one whereas when you talk about biology an organism is not a mechanical entity but an organic one. What differentiates an organism form a mechanism is that the organism grows and the mechanism is built. As well as I see also the computational influence as you talk about "commands" which is used in computer language. In an organic body, I would say it's not so much commands which are given but more a form of communication, a back and forth feeding of chemicals. In the end, of course, you can translate that into a code using language.
You are not "building" stem cells, for example, you are "growing" them in a petri dish. Nobody can build a tree but take a seedling and let it grow. An organism is not just the sum of its parts whereas a mechanism certainly is exactly that. It is therefore unable to repair itself but must be repaired from an entity which has formerly built it.
Don't know if I understood the last part of your comment. Do you mean what I decided to love can be changed by my will? I'd agree on that.