Finding "the one"

[Subotan]

So we're all ignoring the fact that pever said he wasn't after her?

Yes. There wouldn't be much of a discussion otherwise.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sounds ground shattering, but it really isn't.

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.
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.

All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds.

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.

I was not implying lust was somehow special, as what you seem to have taken it as.

Does this mean that emotions are somehow less valid?

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.

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.

That love is nothing but a mental disorder?

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.

That the only normal state of mind is cold and without emotion?

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.

Of course not, the relationship between emotion and chemical balance is undeniable, but that relationship is a little bit more complicated than "the drugs in your brain caused you to fall in love". Have you considered that these chemicals are not released at random, causing you to fall in love at some random time?

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.

Imagine that you were alone feeding your fish when that random burst of chemicals came? Perhaps, it would be more sensible to say "dopamine was released because you found this person attractive" rather than "you found this person attractive because of a burst of dopamine in your brain". Yes yes, I know it's not as sensationalist as "we are all slaves of the Mind Chemicals!" so I must be wrong.

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.

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.

To simply say: there is dopamine in the minds of those in love => love is a mental disorder is at best sensationalist, at worse crass.

I believe I already answered this in the aforementioned paragraphs . 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.

[TinCow]

the claim that love=disorder is perfectly substantiated by hard science.

No, because love is normal and part of human biology. A disorder, by definition, is an abnormal state.

[Aemilius Paulus]

No, because love is normal and part of human biology. A disorder, by definition, is an abnormal state.

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.

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.

[TinCow]

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.

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

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.

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.

[TinCow]

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.

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:

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That is the popular definition. Very scientifically irrigorous.

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.

[Ironside]

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.

......... Q.E.D.

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".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

......... Q.E.D.

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 development

[Aemilius Paulus]

......... Q.E.D.

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".

Yeah, well, he never read Romeo & Juliet in his high school .


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.

[Myrddraal]

I see you weren't being crass, but still sensationalist I think

Infatuations are not logical and we do not have much control over them

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:

They are a mind-altering chemical

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.