Printable View
Not sure, I just came up with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
As you know, emotions are the "sum of the parts" in the body that cause them to happen, I was just thinking "Perhaps, God is just the sum of the parts of the Universe". However, this would imply Universe = God, and thus, the term God comes redunant. But it was an idea at least.
That sounds like pantheism.
Idk about happiness but Ill just say the when people come from these socities they almost all choose the romantic love aspect. It is one of the first part of there culture that is shed and as a middle class emerges in India there is less an less of the old rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Perhaps romantic love is only for the decadent?
The plebs of acinet Greece and Rome all had arranged marriges?Quote:
You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.
All the data seems to contradict you. The more you get married the more likely the divorce is.Quote:
Gah, did you even read my post? So far, all the things you have said show more misunderstandings on your part as opposed to possible holes in my argument. Not to mention, you really misused that statistic there. That is the divorce rate per 1,000 people, meaning all people - people who die early, children, elderly, mentally retarded, incarcerated individuals, etc, etc. That divorce rate does not even discriminate between married and non-married persons. But that is fine if you expected me to divide the latter statistic by the former. Even if you do that, you will get 50% (rounded from 49.something) total divorce rate in proportion to the total marriage rate.
However, I am not done yet. Due to the fact you seemingly did not read my post, you missed out an important qualification - namely, the one where I pointed out the divorce rate of over 60% is found in first-time marriages. ('The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60%' - AP). Therefore, almost precisely half of the US marriages end in a divorce, but the second-time marriages fail at a significantly lower rate than the first-time ones, which answers for the >60% statistic. Since second marriages are quite relatively common in US, my qualification had a crucial effect.
http://www.divorcestatistics.org/
Hmm, an unsupported assertion... You do not think that factor, namely the factor of the divorce taboo never crossed the minds of the sociologist researchers? At least one study, (but undoubtedly at least several more analogous studies existed) I remember, focused on parent-arranged marriages in the Western society. Variables were taken into account.
Nothing, especially on such large scale, is that simple. Logic, stereotypes, cultural assumptions, guesswork, and 'common' sense do not substitute for statistics emanating from peer-reviewed scientific studies.
You dont have established links or sources, your only stats are the ones you choose to give us. Which is fine (and I consider NG repuetable for a debate likes this) but clearly both of us are seeing what we want to seeQuote:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You are joking me, right? You downplay my statistics in every manner, inquire on the sources, examine for variables/biases, cite the causation-correlation problem, nitpick (all of which is perfectly understandable) and now you say this??? :laugh::laugh::laugh: Not funny. 'Cause ancient literature is a scientifically, statistically rigorous source. Without a doubt there are plenty of people who get the short end of the stick in such situations, but mentioning ancient myths is about as accurate as personal experiences. Not anywhere close to valid in the eyes of a sociologist, in other words. A historian has the license to interpret and cite such evidence as a valid support for his/her own hypotheses on the ancient societies, but a sociologist is no historian, not even close in this regard. Of all the things, why mention matters millennia-old? You do not think the treatment of women changed since then? :tongue:
Yes. There wouldn't be much of a discussion otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Who said it was earth-shattering? 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. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
I used the bio- chemical argument in tandem with the socio-cultural and the psychological arguments to create a case for the lack of probability for randomness or logical thought which could be influenced by some higher entity. Nowhere did I reach the same conclusion as you did.
Aber naturlich. This was my argument, and I used this to dispel any romantic or deterministic arguments which the OP pointed to. That is the purpose of this thread, n’est-ce pas? 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
I was not implying lust was somehow special, as what you seem to have taken it as.
Not necessarily the point I was making, or at least not the main one. 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. Mainly lust and love, however. Emotions are mainly expressions, and while they influence us, they do not do so directly, and depend much on our own rational thought to trigger them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
In this respect, lust is slightly different, as it has a direct effect on whom we choose as a mate and with whom we stay in a romantic relationship. It has a direct, intended effect. Oxytocin makes sure the parents stay attached to the children to care for them, as it makes evolutionary sense from the mammalian perspective. Mothers are slaves of oxytocin. So often their logic is unimaginably warped by the desire to keep their offspring safe, which goes far into irrationality. This has profound societal impacts, such as on policymaking.
My mother, for instance, sees no reason why any cost should be spared in things such as airport security. I give her all sorts of arguments, yet she cannot accept the fact that some people will have to die, and that airport security hurts us far more than the actual acts of terrorism. A person who has no regard for his life is immensely dangerous, and there are not many ways we can stop such a fanatic. I know this is teenage-ish cold logic, but I do not mind dying, for instance. If you think I have no experience with death, then how about spinal meningitis when I was 14? I realised I could have died back then, but it did not matter to me, and I was fortunate to have survived with no after-effects. Nor does it matter to me now. Death is a part of life, and there is no reason why cost:benefit ratio cannot be considered in such cases. Of course, life should have a high value, but the current situation is inexcusable.
But really, my prime example of the oxytocin overdose would be the child-protection laws, due to their close relationship with maternal/paternal instincts. US sex offender laws, namely. They contradict all common and legal sense. We already had a thread on this in the past, and I have mentioned those Economist articles. I will not go into great detail on this, but if anyone wishes to see if my assertion is valid, you can request my sources.
To sum it up, the lust/love chemicals have far too much intended, direct effect on us for me to regard them in the class of regular emotions. Our ‘normal’ emotions are dependant on personality and make plenty of sense, notwithstanding the fact that they are illogical often times. These emotions have no intended direct effect. Sure, they are influential, but they have no set purpose, but instead feature numerous applications and are not as biologically essential. They are a much milder version of the long-term attachment to, say, children. That is designed to be a biological prison, to ensure a certain evolutionary behavior.
Yeah, I know it sounds sensationalist, but it is true. Brain scans show a flurry of highly irregular and peculiar patterns which do not compare to any normal state of emotions. Namely serotonin. The brain is literally alight and working around the clock, feverishly when under that short-term intense infatuation ‘spell’. As I said, the only parallel is obsessive-compulsive disorder. Every bio-psychological disorder has a distinct brain signature. So does the first one-two weeks of new love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
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.
Yes, you are correct, but this often goes into a circle. Dopamine is released because one finds a person attractive, but the dopamine perpetuates that, it reinforces the infatuation which is based on inaccurate data of first impression and such. Infatuations are not logical, you have to admit. It is not as simple as you would have it. Once again, I re-iterate, nothing is simple in psychology, or any field of study for that matter. We are neither the first nor the second quote you made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Think of it as a drug addict – a regular person jabs the needle with the heroin in the arm, and finds the first ‘squirt’ pleasing. So he/she continues the injection. However, after this first time, the rest of the injections are done as much because of the addiction as they are because of love. Yeah, you are screaming bloody murder by now, most likely, due to the perceived sensationalism of this claim, in particular due to the parallel I make between narcotics and love. However, you are dead wrong. Numerous drugs stimulate the release of the same ‘pleasure’ chemicals present in love. Dopamine is the main culprit here. Cocaine and love both stimulate the release of it. Love addiction exists, and the main defining characteristic of dependency – especially the physical withdrawal symptoms, are very much present in love – they are called breakups. Sure, my claims sound sensational, and in a manner this is intentional, to reinforce the effectiveness of my argument, but this does not make them false – au contraire.
I believe I already answered this in the aforementioned paragraphs :yes:. Love is a mental disorder. The brain is in a highly disordered state, and the body is very noticeably affected (sleepless nights, obsessions, passion, other torrents of emotions). You could claim that love=addiction/narcotic is sensationalist, which it can be, but the claim that love=disorder is perfectly substantiated by hard science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Of course :inquisitive:. Did you honestly think they married for love? I see why you would reason in this manner, as arranged marriage sounds like something that is more or less an upper-class thing, but I can assure you, it is not. You need to polish up your history before invoking it in a debate...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
What do you mean, you just supported my own point?! Yes, a second marriage is more likely to end in a divorce, but there are less of those than the first marriages. When I said the rate is lower, I meant the gross number, not the percentage. As a percentage of all marriages, the first ones fail more - because there are more of them. That was my point. The statistic is in relation to the total number of marriages, and not the number of first marriages. Same topic, different method. But I was indeed wrong about 60% 'all marriage' statistic. It is 50%, and it looks as if I read the marriage statistics in the past and confused the second marriage statistic as the total divorce rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
OK, so I admitted I was mistaken about the 60%. But what other statistics do you doubt? I gave you what I read in sociology textbooks, which you can check any time you pick one up. You gave me a vague reference to ancient Indian myths, which you have not read (perhaps a few excerpts, but certainly not the entire vegas or other epics), and which I will not read, and which I may not even be able to access.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
No, because love is normal and part of human biology. A disorder, by definition, is an abnormal state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I see you weren't being crass, but still sensationalist I think :wink:
I have to accept that we don't have much control, but just because we have little control over them does not mean they are not logical. Sure we are slow to see defects in those that we love, but is even that illogical? But this isn't the main part of my opinion, that is:Quote:
Infatuations are not logical and we do not have much control over them
This is the attitude I find odd. They are part of our minds. They are not mind-altering just because they are present in an altered mind. It is love/lust/emotion that causes this state of mind, these chemicals reflect that state of mind. See the point? The implication in your argument that emotions are less valid because they trigger the release of chemicals in our brains isn't correct imo.Quote:
They are a mind-altering chemical
That is the popular definition. Very scientifically irrigorous. Abnormal state in what sense? And keep in mind I was speaking of passionate, lustful serotonin-type love, those first couple of weeks. After two weeks at the most, usually, the brain stops the serotonin overdose as it cannot keep up - it simply burns out. That is why serotonin-induced infatuation is a disorder.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
The brain is never meant to sustain such activity, and it is highly irregular. But given the right conditions, it will start up. Same with Down's Syndrome, for instance, in the sense that the right conditions (usually an old mother at the time of conception) will cause Down's Syndrome, which is an abnormal, but chronic state.
However, not all love is serotonin-induced. Only the passionate infatuations, as I said. Dopamine and oxytocin are the mainstay, mainly the latter. There is little abnormal about them, and the brain activity is at regular levels during steady dopamine and oxytocin intake.
Both lustful love and longterm love are biologically normal. They are part of the evolution of animals. Lustful love can be seen in nearly every animal in existence; it is called rutting and mating and is a regular feature of nature documentaries. Animals evolved lustful love to encourage procreation. As for longterm love, that is generally restricted to higher-order animals which produce fewer offspring and is an evolutionary adaptation to improve the survival odds of those offspring. It is very common between female animals and their offspring, as well as between mated pairs in species which are largely monogomous. Humans are just smart animals, nothing more. We are subject to behavior by instinct just as much as any other creature. It may not be logical in a purely philosophical sense, but it is most certainly not abnormal for a creature to act in accordance with its instincts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
That's how scientists define these things though. For most psychological disorders, one of the requirements for someone to be diagnosed with it is "significantly interferes with quality of life" or "causes distress" in a way that is not expected during normal development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Once again, two different definitions of normal. And once again, your argument is logical yet not scientific at all, even if you base yourself on valid observations.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Normal can mean many things in the popular sense. You make the argument normal is anything that happens often, or in this case, nearly every time. I would not accept your rationalisation, but since infatuation seems to occur at least once in every person's lifetime, I can accept your argument. But from a popular point of view. As I said before, a neurologist will not acquiesce to your argument of 'normal' when he/she looks at the PET scan (IIRC, that is what they mainly use to monitor brain activity patterns, and not the EEG or the CAT scans).
That sort of activity is anything but normal for a human brain. It happens to almost all of us, but hardly often, it is not regular, such as say, the menstruation cycle (which would be abnormal if it was not so relatively regular) and not for long - if anything, the inability of the brain to maintain this voluntary state should tell if it is normal or not.
You are simply making up your own definitions. If you want to argue about scientific and medical abnormalities, you need to use the scientific and medical definitions for those terms. My job is almost entirely devoted to medical disabilities, and I actively specialize in mental health claims. As a result, I have medical books sitting all around me. Here is the definition of disorder:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
disorder - a derangement or abnormality of function; a morbid phsical or mental state. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 547 (30th ed. 2003).
mental disorder - any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom. Mental disorders are assumed to be the manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. The concept does not include deviant behavior, disturbances that are essentially conflicts between the individual and society, or expected and culturally sanctioned responses to particular events. Id. at 549 (emphasis added).
I also have a copy of DSM-IV sitting next to me. Love is not listed in it.
I was not speaking from a psychological perspective when I said infatuation is abnormal. Not at all, and it should have been obvious once I began citing the chemicals and their effects on the brain. Broadly speaking, a psychologist touches upon that, but it is the specialty of a neurologist. A neurologist will tell 'you infatuation is not normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
And I am not defending myself because I am stubborn. I have admitted my mistakes likely more often than anyone I know here in the Backroom. I agreed with SFTS that the 60% stat was incorrect. But I am serious about this. A psychologist and a neurologist have exceedingly varied views. Psychology is often criticised for calling almost anything a syndrome. A neurologist will see if there are physical manifestation of the alleged disorder and whether they correlate before declaring something a medical disorder.
P.S. Not to mention, DSMD-V (or DSM-V) is soon to come out, who knows what surprises it will hold? :tongue::laugh4::clown: EDIT: No, I did not see your post about DSM-IV yet, not when I wrote this postscript :tongue:
OK, but now you are accusing NG of doing the same, since I did not just make this up, but found out in the NG article. I would be more careful about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I would need to consult DSM-IV before I debate this, but nevertheless, I fail to see how the serotonin overdose does not count. It is a derangement and abnormality of the brain resulting from the excessive intake of serotonin. Do you not know how radically the brain chemistry is altered once this occurs? Additionally, I do not see why morbid had to be thrown in - not all disorders could fall into the 'morbid' bracket, especially not from the first glance.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
That is the psychological definition, why do you thrust it at me continuously? Is it so difficult to admit that the highly irregular and disorderly activity of the brain is not a neurological disorder, albeit not in necessarily a pathological sense due to its origin? Does the release of mind-altering drugs not result in a disorder of the brain?Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Once again, psychology. Nor would I ever expect it to be there. But even from a psychological perspective, infatuation can be characterised as a disorder, although not actually defined as such because it is not a deviation from normality. Does the striking similarity between OCD and infatuation not count? Oh, and use 'infatuation' if you may, instead of 'love', because infatuation is unique in its neurological characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Yeah, and a neurologist will tell you that people get aroused when standing on the edge of a cliff. And an professional writer would tell you something about the use of the word "normal" and the implications depending on context :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Arousal is nothing compared to infatuation. Infatuation lasts for two weeks, as I said, at the most, in the most cases. That is not a momentary mood swing/spike. There is a world of difference. That is why the prolonged effect of infatuation is a disorder, whereas simple arousal is not - simple arousal cannot be naturally maintained for so long, not without the natural serotonin uptake. This is akin to saying forgetting something once is a disorder, when you need something more profound and repetitive, such as Alzheimer's, amnesia, or other forms of dementia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
That's not the point though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Would you say to someone that you get aroused standing on the edge of a cliff? Do you get aroused giving a speech in class? You would have to say that in order to be consistent.
You have different stimuli. That breaks the consistency. The stimuli in the case of infatuation is the same, and very direct - sexual attraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Additionally, the arousal is different in both cases. The symptoms are different. Similar, but not the same. Or so I believe - but even if I am wrong in this regard, there is still the aforementioned point.
As far as I can tell, you are either distorting or misunderstanding the NG article. The only information you have given us on it is its title: Love: The Chemical Reaction. That title doesn't give any information other than that love is a chemical reaction, which has absolutely no relationship to it being abnormal. There are many, many normal chemical reactions in the human body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Unless you're claiming some kind of expert knowledge in this field, you need to provide actual information for all of this. Cite the actual quotes from the body of your NG article and find medical treatises which back up your statements.Quote:
I would need to consult DSM-IV before I debate this, but nevertheless, I fail to see how the serotonin overdose does not count. It is a derangement and abnormality of the brain resulting from the excessive intake of serotonin. Do you not know how radically the brain chemistry is altered once this occurs? Additionally, I do not see why morbid had to be thrown in - not all disorders could fall into the 'morbid' bracket, especially not from the first glance.
That is the psychological definition, why do you thrust it at me continuously? Is it so difficult to admit that the highly irregular and disorderly activity of the brain is not a neurological disorder, albeit not in necessarily a pathological sense due to its origin? Does the release of mind-altering drugs not result in a disorder of the brain?
Once again, psychology. Nor would I ever expect it to be there. But even from a psychological perspective, infatuation can be characterised as a disorder, although not actually defined as such because it is not a deviation from normality. Does the striking similarity between OCD and infatuation not count? Oh, and use 'infatuation' if you may, instead of 'love', because infatuation is unique in its neurological characteristics.
Do you subscribe to NG? Well, I suppose you do not if you are asking me this, so I will come back home and cite it for you. Yeah, I would not try to make up facts such as these. Science debates are tricky in this regard, which is why I normally stay away.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
BTW, Lauren Slater wrote the article, and she has master's from Harvard as well as a doctorate from Boston Uni, so she is not some sensationalist quack or anything of that sort. I checked online for the article, but my suspicions were proven correct, alas, when I read the article only appeared in its full version in the print edition.
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).