Zathras knows The One, but nobody ever asks Zathras.
Printable View
Zathras knows The One, but nobody ever asks Zathras.
I do not doubt the legitimate nature of the article, only the conclusions you are drawing from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I think I read that article like 5 years ago. Or maybe they rewrote it.
Anyway, you wouldn't describe yourself as aroused by giving a speech to class because, although you technically are aroused, that is not the common usage of the word. But you insist on arguing for your technical definition here and dismiss the "popular usage". That's inconsistent.
The technical discussion is very relevant to the idea of "the one", and I don't think people have an issue with your statements there. But you are attempting to describe it as a bad thing in general and not worthwhile (that is your implication with words like imbalance and disorder, and saying things like "people do all kinds of stupid things under the influence of this drug). But this argument is basically guilt by association--OCD is bad, therefore love is bad. That's a weak argument.
We disagree on comparatively minor issue of definition, I do not see why this matters so much, but I will provide the quotations :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Well, every single thing was predestined from eternity by God so technically, everything works like that and if she finds "the one" who she should be with and it’s for real and not gonna end up badly sometime later…Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
However, that doesn’t seem to happen for a lot of people.
Aemilius Paulus, holy crap dude, you really got brainwashed with all that anti-vitalist and reductionist bull**** they implicitly smuggle in intro psychology and neuroscience books. :shocked2: :shame:
Let's just have a go at some of your more outlandish statements:
Leaving behind the idea of love being a mental disorder (some others have already jumped on you on that case, appealing to current scientific consensus which you seem to acquiesce to as an authority), love is also not at all even a chemical state of mind. This is exactly what the reductionists would have you believe, and furthermore such an idea cannot even be called scientific (if that distinction carries weight with you). It just happens that many neuroscientists and psychologists hold a metaphysical belief in reductionism, and furthermore, it is widely prevalent in the scientific community and they allow it to influence their conclusions.Quote:
I will clarify, however, and point out that love is nearly entirely a chemical state of mind - even the long-term affection as a matter of fact. For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine is the more instant-acting chemical while serotonin maintains your obsession over longer periods of time. Now, what the interesting fact I was going to say is that the state of the brain suffering from love is very, very similar to that of an OCD person, down to the levels of serotonin.
Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. And it is, one cannot deny this - people do all sorts of stupid things under the influence of this drug. Finally, even the long term love is a result of chemical imbalance, namely the excess of the hormone of oxytocin. Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.
Love also isn’t a ”drug” (the chemicals you mention are naturally occurring chemicals that are not introduced into the body so that’s just a poor term to use). Essentially you fall hard into the problem of associating chemical levels with emotions. Like SFTS pointed out earlier (in a different avenue, I’m going to extend its use) correlation does not equal causation. Your reply back will probably be that ” the scientists agree with the conclusions” which doesn’t at all change the fact that correlation does not equal causation (just another meta-reasoning fallacy that science falls into by attributing natural causation to statistical correlation).
I remember hearing about that NG article. Never bothered to read it in full before and thank god I didn’t. I did google it, skim it, and then skim this reply to it: http://www.ppzq.net/kaz/Alchemy/LSreview.htmlQuote:
The quick answer would be the February 2006 National Geographic article 'Love: The Chemical Reaction''. If NG does not satisfy you, which is understandable, since it is no scientific journal, much less a peer-review one, it is possible to examine the sources cited by the article. But this is chemistry observations, and it is difficult to go wrong here - or at least in comparison to a very impure and subtle science of sociology.
I tend to agree with the reviewer (his pro scientific slant aside) that the author of the article you mentioned is just stretching at a lot of things to draw far fetched conclusions. The love = OCD thing that you purported earlier is particularly attacked here.
How do you conclude this?Quote:
Right. My point was that this attraction is arbitrary - in the sense that it is not so much the physical/personality traits that affect us, but the circumstance as well.
What do you mean by independent thought? Do you believe that we can actually have thoughts divorced from our brain chemistry at all? Our own ‘free will’ thoughts for lack of a better term? :inquisitive:Quote:
Of course it is not, the chemicals still have to be touched off. But the point is, once they are touched off, we lose quite a bit of independent thought.
You use terms like ‘addicted’ and ‘deleterious’, I’d wager that’s a contentious idea to hold among reductionist neuroscientists for one.Quote:
We become addicted to the chemicals in a certain sense. They are a mind-altering chemical, and they do affect us more than we would be comfortable with. This is not an intellectual decision we make here. We do not weight the pros and cons, logically examine the situation. Well, we do, but the deleterious influence of the chemicals prevents many from thinking straight – males in particular.
Then again it seems you seem to assume that the best decisions are based on (paraphrasing you here) some ”rational” and ”economic” sense. Ok.
How did you do this at all? You seemingly jumped from the conclusion that ”All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds” as Myrd put it to your own conclusion that it is the chemical balance that not only cause love but are used to define love.Quote:
This was my argument, and I used this to dispel any romantic or deterministic arguments which the OP pointed to.
Why is this absurd at all? Perhaps it doesn’t fit into your paradigm that all must be nice and ”logical” ? Ok.Quote:
Alternatively, if one believes that God is so involved and so prone to meddling that he actually manipulates the chemicals and genetically imprinted responses for the sake of our romantic harmony, then that implies that God regularly alters the very rules he created. This line of thought will swiftly veer off into absurdity, also known as ‘Last Thusdayism’ where there is no limit to how much a deity twists the universe to fit into various dogmas. Really, I see little choice but to accept agnosticism or atheism as a reality.
Also agnosticism makes no ontological claims about the reality of God.
I wish you had stated this before, you typed a whole bunch of stuff which kinda meandered in different places, and while one got the impression that this was your belief, it wasn’t really clear.Quote:
My main point was as I have stated it before. No such thing as true love. As for this point, I will say that all emotions are simply releases of various chemicals, and that yes, in part, that makes them less valid.
Aside from you own belief that all emotions are releases of chemicals which I have addressed earlier, why does it make them ”less valid” and what does that even mean? I mean, I guess you will find neuroscientists and psychologists who share you metaphysical underpinnings and your conclusion, but I don’t know how many would agree with the less valid thing. But first you need to elaborate more on what exactly you mean.
This would be a very interesting line of inquiry to pursue. What is used as the baseline as defining ”normal brain activity”?Quote:
I very much understand the point you are making, but regular emotions are not the same as no emotions. Emotions are normal, and the brain signatures are fairly balanced, with normal activity. The scientists are not comparing lust with a blank slate – they are comparing it with regular brain activity. Severe depression and certain powerful disorders have an immense effect on those brain activity patterns/signatures. So does love, and its signature is very similar to OCD. The activity is intense, and can never be rivalled by regular emotions, which register a comparatively insignificant and momentary impact on the brain activity.
Also here I believe you begin to conflate the word normal and use it in two senses to conclude that since the brain activity is supposedly abnormal when experiencing love, then it is not normal behavior and thus a mental disorder.
And here you go and change what I thought was your previous position to one that takes away the idea of chemicals causing the emotion though it keeps the idea that the emotion is defined by the chemical balance.Quote:
This point, is undeniably true. But I never attempted counter this point. It would be most stupid of me to say that chemicals cause love. No, they maintain it, and perpetuate it, but they are still triggered by outside forces. Since I am not a professor on a lecture, I did not go into every detail and thus left off the part about the causes of the release of those chemicals.
Your conclusion was that I view us as total slaves to chemicals. No, the chemicals are still released based on non-random factors, but alas, too much of that is genetics. Infatuations are not logical and we do not have much control over them. The only decisions we really make are the personality/intelligence/interestingness-of-a-person type factors. But those carry influence after the initial impact of lust has been made, as research shows. Sadly, these factors are secondary.
And at this point I kinda got tired of going through the posts saying much of the same covered before.
I think this puts it best:
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Main Entry: re·duc·tion·ism
Function: noun
1 : explanation of complex life-science processes and phenomena in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry; also : a theory or doctrine that complete reductionism is possible
2 : a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms
It matters because you have been insisting that you are holding to the scientific and medical definition of the terms, and the rest of us are using the wrong terms. When people start throwing around medical and scientific evidence, that evidence needs to be accurate because by its nature it has the propensity to shut down debate by sheer weight of authority. This particular issue caught my attention because it is closely related to what I do professionally. I am often similarly animated when I see what I consider to be inaccurate statements of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I disagree. I just told you why that arousal does not constitute a disorder. It is not due to my momentary and hypocritical espousal of popular definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
You are surely joking, right? I am a sane man. But I call things what they are. Infatuation is a disorder, even if it may be 'good', and 'patriotism' is still nationalism, even if patriotism is the milder, and generally thought of as beneficial. I do not say it is bad, because it is so natural and common, but why would you want to be infatuated, hedonistic pleasure aside? The stuff scrambles your brains not much worse than alcohol. But it lasts longer...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
But I am not saying it is guilty in that sense. And just what do you mean, 'guilt by association'? When you say that Obama is like Hitler because both shared one insignificant factor - speaking out against smoking, let us say - this is guilt by association. But when one disorder is nearly the same, neurologically, as the other, that is a valid comparison. You are acting like SFTS does sometimes with his favourite tactic of correlation=/=causation. Yes, both instances are fallacies, and yes, SFTS is at times correct, but you need to know how to apply both - throwing them and hoping it sticks is not a valid tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I mean, really? When two things share a certain amount of similarities, a scientist will draw a link... Since both the neurological cause and the psychological symptoms of OCD and infatuation are startlingly similar, then it is logical to link the two. That is called compare & contrast. When there are more comparisons than contrasts, then 'guilt by association' fallacy is not quite applicable. The hypothesis may still be incorrect, but at least it was no argumentative fallacy.
You propurted that arranged marriges have a lower divorce rate than non arranged marriges because they were arranged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
A quick bout of google-fu shows that is not the case and that social and cultural factors rule the roost when it comes to divorce.
Then you point to some "study" where "professionals" have taken this into account. I have yet to see this study and think you are fudging the facts to fit with your stoic world view
It is not a favorite tactic of mine you just seem to use the fallacy often.
Look, I could care less about erotic love, as I have yet to experience it (or I never will, who knows). I like toying with certain theories, and I have gotten quite caught up in this argument. But to say that I actually sincerely believe in the things? I would not go there. I find it nearly impossible to explain how I feel on this topic, but the impression several people here formed is an erroneous one. I am, however, glad that I do not experience infatuation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
As for the rest of your post, I have already answered it most of it in my posts and I will not repeat, at least not right now - perhaps later this evening (6 hours away for me).
No, that was one of the points where you correctly applied it, and I did say that you had both success and (IMO) failures in the usage of this tactic. My response was that the factor was already noted by the researchers. It is a blatantly obvious factor too. Instead, I was referencing to that thread on religion where you mis-applied the correlation-causation dilemma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Also, I already explained why the arranged marriages are more successful, even with the cultural factors aside. The inverse of why cohabitation makes the marriages more unsuccessful. You can re-read that point if you wish, and pick up a sociology/psychology book, where this is a common example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
I think we differ on the usuage of the word correctQuote:
Originally Posted by AP
Whether arousal constitutes a disorder is irrelevant. The point is that words have implications, which you must consider when making a statement unless you want to say something misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Let's say that obama didn't drink and was a vegetarian. His not drinking and not eating meet would be nearly the same as hitler's not drinking and no eating meat, correct? But one does not then conclude that obama is bad, because hitler is bad.Quote:
But I am not saying it is guilty in that sense. And just what do you mean, 'guilt by association'? When you say that Obama is like Hitler because both shared one insignificant factor - speaking out against smoking, let us say - this is guilt by association. But when one disorder is nearly the same, neurologically, as the other, that is a valid comparison. You are acting like SFTS does sometimes with his favourite tactic of correlation=/=causation. Yes, both instances are fallacies, and yes, SFTS is at times correct, but you need to know how to apply both - throwing them and hoping it sticks is not a valid tactic.
You arguments have all been about comparing love to bad things, and that is the basis for your negative opinion of it.
"Love is similar to OCD" is not the part people are arguing with you about. People talk about love all the time and compare and contrast it to many things. They are disagreeing about the conclusion-->Quote:
I mean, really? When two things share a certain amount of similarities, a scientist will draw a link... Since both the neurological cause and the psychological symptoms of OCD and infatuation are startlingly similar, then it is logical to link the two. That is called compare & contrast. When there are more comparisons than contrasts, then 'guilt by association' fallacy is not quite applicable. The hypothesis may still be incorrect, but at least it was no argumentative fallacy.
Marriage is the single most reliable happiness indicator.Quote:
Originally Posted by AP
-edit-
The comparison to alcohol is a good one. Most people, I feel safe saying, greatly enjoy the effects of alcohol. When you talk about "brains being scrambled' you sound like a D.A.R.E officer*.
*guilt by association :p
Fair enough although I think it was understandable how many of us interpreted your views on neuroscience and emotions given some of the statements you gave. My bad for attributing to you views you don't really espouse.Quote:
Look, I could care less about erotic love, as I have yet to experience it (or I never will, who knows). I like toying with certain theories, and I have gotten quite caught up in this argument. But to say that I actually sincerely believe in the things? I would not go there. I find it nearly impossible to explain how I feel on this topic, but the impression several people here formed is an erroneous one. I am, however, glad that I do not experience infatuation.
As for the rest of your post, I have already answered it most of it in my posts and I will not repeat, at least not right now - perhaps later this evening (6 hours away for me).
Then again, I think there are several major points of contention with your posts and some of the others including myself. I pointed out the idea that emotions are somehow defined by chemical balances in the first place and the comparison of love and OCD and the labeling of love as a mental disorder.
For the first, it really boils down to how you interpret the correlations of certain experimental results of chemical balances alongside admittedly subjective reports of emotions in an abstract sense.
For the second, I believe the author of the article you mentioned wrote a poor piece that stretched the conclusions of the work of the neuroscientists she cited. Again, I submit this critique of the entire article for your review: http://www.ppzq.net/kaz/Alchemy/LSreview.html
Lastly, I believe you were guilty of equivocating the word normal when applied to the chemical balances of the brain during certain emotions being different from baseline, and then jumping to the conclusion that since the brain activity wasn't at baseline during this emotion, it must be abnormal and then again equivocating the use of the word and then jumping to the conclusion that love is a mental disorder.
For some more sober pieces espousing the same general idea you brought up that emotions are basically chemical reactions, I would turn to: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ove_02-13.html.
For a cautionary look at the whole idea: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan...on/op-lehrer20
You still missed my point in the midst of making yours. I already said why my comparison was valid and yours not in my opinion, so I do not see how I could be misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Splendid tactic, but science does not work like that, or not necessarily in this case (at the same time, it does not matter). I knew you would make this comparison, but simply offering more data, but how absurd do you want to make your argument? When both the cause and the symptom in two different medical conditions, that is a big thing. When two politicians share two personal preferences, that is guilt by association, as the data is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Relevant association is needed, and you would be hard-pressed to say my evidence was not relevant. It may have been the wrong conclusion on my part, but whatever you say, the evidence was relevant and I do have a basis for a valid hypothesis, no matter how much you play around with words.
If say, Hitler's economic policy as well as his take on government regulation of deleterious substances were both the same or very similar to that of Obama's, then the comparison is gaining validity, even if Obama still does not measure up due to his apparent lack of clear racism and genocidal tendencies.
You arguments have all been about comparing love to bad things, and that is the basis for your negative opinion of it.
Oh, well then, that should not be a problem, as my conclusion is still fairly the same on the usefulness/nature of love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Of course. But if you were to say that infatuation results in marriage, then you would be using the very tactic you crusaded against - correlation=/=causation. Infatuation is very much a part of us, mainly in our younger, less wise age. Saying it is a good thign because marraige is a good thing is inaccurate. Much more often than not, infatuation fails to lead into marriage. From what I read, infatuations are startlingly common among teenage males. Very few actually lead to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Point - counterpoint. There is always two sides to any argument :shrug:. As a matter of fact, I did not like the article either, for its unscientific tone, but the data was alright. Anyhow, the most important point is that you referred to some poorly-written (the html is very simple and the general stylistic similarities point to the possible home-written nature of the site) and questionable, unsourced site, and I referred to a Harvard and Boston doctorate-holder, author of numerous, writing for one of the leading popular science (among many other things) magazine in the US. Sure, popularity and credentials far from guarantee veracity, but face it - your source is not hot at all, unless you can find something notable about the author.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Wrong conclusion from my posts, but you are not the first one to think in this manner. I am too tired to explain it any longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Yes, I read the article and all of it makes good sense, especially the part about the the quacks marketing the chemicals, which should not have any effect on humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Inappropriate&insufficient credentials with regards to Mr. Jonah Leher, and on a different topic. No doctorate on psychology or neuroscience - only an undergraduate in both neuroscience and English - and an unrelated are of study which he did not even finish (Lit and Theology for two years). Anyone can argue on this topic - you and I are doing it right now - but very few are actually qualified. Dr. Slater certainly is, regardless of what she wrote in the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
The data was just data from other scientists (of course the author herself doesn't have the capability to work in the laboratory). How it was interpreted was terrible. And that interpretation is one of your conclusions most unfortunately. :sad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
As to the veracity of my source, you are quite mistaken if you believe it is poorly written, as the syntax and grammar conform to the highest standards of the modern style and the diction is elegant while at the same time managing the highest levels of perspicacity. The vivid color scheme shows a great command of aesthetics as well as graphical user interface design.
Anyhow, the author of my source visibly has a better grasp of the science than Ms. Slater (note how the original studies are referenced and this time actually analyzed with sobriety). One therefore is led to the conclusion that Ms. Slater gave head to a lot of people to get those degrees she holds, because she certainly couldn't have been able to obtain them due to mastery of her subject matter.* Thus her credentials are absolutely meaningless (as if they weren't before, as I judged the articles' content themselves, and not the author - just personal preference).
*For those wondering about this comment do note that Slater in her article begins by awkwardly describing an equally awkward sexual escapade which furthers my conjecture on how Slater got her doctorate. :rolleyes:
I did have a hard time drawing conclusions from your posts, as there were many contradictory assertions as I've noted above. :help:Quote:
Wrong conclusion from my posts, but you are not the first one to think in this manner. I am too tired to explain it any longer.
I'm afraid that Slater's qualifications become completely irrelevant with the drivel that she wrote and I've already cast probable doubt on the legitimacy by which she obtained her credentials above.Quote:
Inappropriate&insufficient credentials with regards to Mr. Jonah Leher, and on a different topic. No doctorate on psychology or neuroscience - only an undergraduate in both neuroscience and English - and an unrelated are of study which he did not even finish (Lit and Theology for two years). Anyone can argue on this topic - you and I are doing it right now - but very few are actually qualified. Dr. Slater certainly is, regardless of what she wrote in the article.
As for the erudite Jonah Leher and his background, firstly, it is plainly apparent that the topic of the article has nothing to do with psychology or neuroscience per se anyway. It has to do with the philosophy of the methods of neuroscience, namely reductionism, which an English degree would go much farther than a psychology/neuroscience degree in preparing one for. You see, I've noticed in my own studies that scientists (especially the weak 'sciences' like psychology) in general are not really able to think abstractly about the metaphysical values they adhere to. At least with an English major you know somebody is capable of deeper analysis and better writing than Slater.
Doctorate is not that impressive. And articles in popular magazines are often superficial, with "interesting" conclusions tacked on. Many times psych studies con only provide a narrow amount of information, and it's interpreted however the article writer feels like interpreting it.
@AP: just to be clear, what is the conclusion you draw from "love is a mental disorder"? What I was pointing out was that you were using a bunch of loaded words that all implied a certain conclusion (just as "aroused" implies sexual arousal). You may not be using guilt by association intentionally, but that is the effect. I don't think I've really been pushing the "correlation is not causation" angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Well am I wrong?
You say I was correct even though you said I wasn't earlier.
I want to know which one of these it is
Isn't "The One" also a Jet Li film? About dimensions, and reality in a sort of highlander style twist?
Yes, though it was an abnormal film I think. I got a bit aroused during the fight scenes at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Gah, I will answer to-morrow - I am too sleepy to think clearly now, only read. That is what I get for staying up four nights in a row rediscovering the MiNO I once so passionately detested. I have no other time to play, period, so the night seemed the only choice. After four nights, the sleep deprivation finally began showing as the evening today set in (it is 22:00 local time)... Lucky for me I am a stranger to caffeine - I heard people using it find they are dependent on it in such circumstances.
:inquisitive: ......... Q.E.D. :logic:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Seriously, you never had or know someone who have been "generally distressed" because they've fallen in love with someone they would never consider to have a relationship with? Or to put it short "I love him/her, but I just don't like him/her".
...in a way that is not expected during normal developmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Yeah, well, he never read Romeo & Juliet in his high school :laugh::tongue:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Love has caused more distress than any other single psychological disorder on Earth, and it is foolish, inexperienced, or simply being in denial to not admit this, - IMHO.
EDIT: I will however hasten to note that at the same time love caused more or the greatest happiness than any single thing, but the previous point I made is no less valid. For every true, happy love people have tens of failed ones which brought great pain - is this not true for the modern Western society? Now, the 'true' love is what you get for the price of paying with the failed liaisons, and it is worth it, as most say, but to say that love does not fit into the definition of causing distress and significantly interfering with life is absurdity of the highest degree - or merely stubbornness/denial, as I said before.
I think most of us agree with you that love causes distress and often significantly interferes with life. The disagreement is not with this assessment, but rather with your assertion that this implies some kind of medical or scientific abnormality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
That's the whole bloody point of it! Let your passions rage, love, feel, live!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
It has also made more people happy than any other psychological disorder. and i do not believe you can classify it as a disorder. More like a state of mind.Quote:
Love has caused more distress than any other single psychological disorder on Earth
Aww, come on, you do not think taht is what I meant, do you? Do I look like some sort of freak? Sure, I am not into girls, but I am not stupid either, and I do not think it is an abnormality. Little is more normal than love, in fact. However, it sure does appear abnormal when examining it from a purely neurological perspective, as I said. And yes, I will cite that article, it is just that I am too lazy to start copying it. Still, for you to think that I actually believe love is some sort of an abnormality speaks volumes about how my posts managed to mislead people.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Hey, not fair, your supposed refutation was a mere repletion. I myself, in the same post, said the same thing. And anything is a state of mind, so I do not see how that applies to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
You're right, I have no idea how we managed to get that idea.... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Why do you say so? I realise my posts were misleading, and I said so myself. Or do you enjoy rubbing it in? :devilish:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Only a prepubescent child can call love abnormal. I already in my posts yesterday that love is more normal than normal from a simple human perspective. Just not from mainly the neurological one - which does not matter for any human being save for the ones who stud this.
a disorder is not a choice. you can choose to be in love. you wyourself are asexual does someone suffering from say bibolar disorder have any real choice in the matter do they wake up one day and go i have bibolar disorder.Quote:
Hey, not fair, your supposed refutation was a mere repletion. I myself, in the same post, said the same thing. And anything is a state of mind, so I do not see how that applies to this.
i think not.
Hahaha, I rest my case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Clearly, neither of you have been in love, and you don't seem to even realise what love is (which does not mean you do not feel it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Romantic love is an extension of the more common forms of love we feel for friends and family. Long-term love for a partner is actually something truly extrordinary because it involves inducting someone new into your close family and (to an extent) excluding your blood-kin.
no i have not pvc thank god im only 17. but i can understand the concept. It is not right to qualify it as a medical disorder is all im saying people do fall in and out of love no matter how deeply enamored they are with each other.Quote:
Clearly, neither of you have been in love, and you don't seem to even realise what love is (which does not mean you do not feel it).
Romantic love is an extension of the more common forms of love we feel for friends and family. Long-term love for a partner is actually something truly extrordinary because it involves inducting someone new into your close family and (to an extent) excluding your blood-kin.
People fall in and out of relationships more than in and out of love. Love is involuntary; you meet someone, you love them. It's like a key in a lock; they're the key, you're the lock, the key goes in, the bolt drops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
HOWEVER, this doesn't make it a mental disorder.
AP doesn't :devilish:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Thats all i am trying to say.Quote:
HOWEVER, this doesn't make it a mental disorder.
Edit: also there are multiple people on earth whom you can truly love.
Of course I was not. But why do you say so about Centurion? Or are you simply saying that he felt lust but not long-term love? That is possible, yes, at his age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Of course, my focus was on lust, which has numerous characteristics of certain disorders. The long-term actual love is a splendid thing - nor does it have a neurological profile of a disorder, nto at all. As I said, the brain cannot maintain lust, but long-term love is a different matter. As for romantic love being an extension, well, I am not quite sure what you mean by extension, but if I am correct in interpreting your post, you have the right idea. Chemical profile of long-term romantic love is no different from the love felt for friends and family - just stronger, with more oxytocin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
QFT :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
oh i have lusted......... but i am not foolish enough to fall in love at my age.Quote:
Of course I was not. But why do you say so about Centurion? Or are you simply saying that he felt lust but not long-term love? That is possible, yes, at his age.
I found love once.....then I accidentally disconnected from Chat Roulette.
There's always Omegle
pever...you're just being silly. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen