Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Need some serious Help, is Love Real?
Wolf
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 15 (239951)
09-02-2005 12:46 PM


I was discussing the Kansas School board decision with my wife. I was telling her that scientist do not think it (ID)should be taught in a science class. Because there is no way to scientifically prove the existence of a creator. So she asked me to prove that the love we feel for each other is real. Have scientist through studies proved that Love is real. I have done some looking around on the net and have not come across anything. She wants scientific proof that it is real. That is her challenge to me. Can anyone point me towards some studies?
BTW I love The FSM!! I'm buying a T-shirt... and joining the church!!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 09-02-2005 1:15 PM Wolf has replied
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 09-02-2005 2:03 PM Wolf has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 2 of 15 (239961)
09-02-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wolf
09-02-2005 12:46 PM


Wolf writes:
So she asked me to prove that the love we feel for each other is real.
If she needs proof, then it is not real.
However, I don't see any relation between this, and the question of whether ID is science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wolf, posted 09-02-2005 12:46 PM Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Wolf, posted 09-02-2005 1:22 PM nwr has not replied

  
Wolf
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 15 (239964)
09-02-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
09-02-2005 1:15 PM


I don't either.
She's not questioning whether or not Love is real. She wants to know if scientists are able to prove it. Because I said you cannot prove the existence of a creator through scientific observation. So she wants to know if scientists are able to prove Love.

"A Dwarf on a Giants Shoulder sees the Furthest of the Two!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 09-02-2005 1:15 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 1:32 PM Wolf has replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 4 of 15 (239967)
09-02-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wolf
09-02-2005 1:22 PM


She wants to know if scientists are able to prove it.
Yes, "love" is a neurologically observable experience. Most experiments include a preliminary interview about the people they love and obtaining images of their spouses, girlfriends, crushes, etc.
These images are shown to the subjects in a controlled environment along with images of other people they know and measuring their brain activity. There are also differences in the patterns of "love" for, for example, a mother as opposed to a girlfriend.
I hope this helps your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wolf, posted 09-02-2005 1:22 PM Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Wolf, posted 09-02-2005 1:48 PM dsv has replied
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 09-02-2005 1:51 PM dsv has not replied
 Message 13 by Ben!, posted 09-02-2005 6:31 PM dsv has replied

  
Wolf
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 15 (239969)
09-02-2005 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by dsv
09-02-2005 1:32 PM


dsv,
Thanks it does help, however she wants me to show her in black and white that it has been proven. Can you point me towards any sources?
Thanks for your help....

"A Dwarf on a Giants Shoulder sees the Furthest of the Two!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 1:32 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 2:07 PM Wolf has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 15 (239970)
09-02-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by dsv
09-02-2005 1:32 PM


Neurological experiments? Just observing behavior should provide enough evidence that the existence of an emotion called "love" is a justified hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 1:32 PM dsv has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 7 of 15 (239983)
09-02-2005 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wolf
09-02-2005 12:46 PM


It's a reproducible, observable emotional state.
Yu know you love your wife. I know I love my girlfriend. Billions of people feel the emotion, and it has observable effects on behavior. Emotions cross all boundaries of culture, race, and religion.
Neurology has been studying emotion in the brain for some time.
quote:
Most inquiries into the hemispheric lateralization of emotions in humans have been based on the distribution of primary emotions and their associated display behaviors. The concept of primary emotions evolved from the work of Darwin who suggested that certain emotions have as their substrate an innate neural basis since they are universally expressed and understood across cultures. The experiential aspects of primary emotions, which include anger, fear, panic, sadness, surprise, interest, happiness (ecstasy), and disgust, have been linked functionally to the temporal limbic regions.
Although some investigators have emphasized the special role of the right hemisphere in the regulation of all emotions -- the Right Hemisphere Hypothesis, others have suggested a Valence Hypothesis with negative and unpleasant types of emotions and related displays lateralized to the right and positive emotions and displays lateralized to the left hemisphere. Psychosocial data that are not yet well appreciated clinically provide a broader perspective of emotional behavior that embraces the idea that emotions and their displays have both primary and social properties. The data are usually derived from assessing the impact of social situations on the expressivity of primary emotional displays in normal subjects. It has also been suggested that certain types of emotions should be categorized under the term "social" to distinguish them from primary emotions.
Social emotions are thought to derive biologically from attachment. Buck has argued that inherent to attachment are two distinct social motives: 1) to gain approval by meeting or exceeding the expectations of others and 2) to gain affection, such as love or admiration. Success or failure in meeting social expectations may result in a person experiencing pride versus embarrassment or guilt whereas success or failure in gaining affection may result in joy or euphoria versus shame. If a peer or comparison person succeeds or fails in meeting social expectations or gaining affection, emotions such as envy versus pity or jealousy versus scorn may be experienced. Thus, social emotions have both positive and negative valences as do primary emotions. Primary emotions, however, have a predominantly negative bias. Although social emotions have a more balanced distribution of valence, in most formal situations positive emotional displays, such as cheerfulness or attentiveness, are expected in keeping with social "display rules", a term first coined by Ekman and Friesen. Implicit in the existence of display rules is that the emotional expressions of normal individuals may, at times, be at variance with their true internal feeling states.
A small bit from this rather long paper about the neurological basis of emotion. Experimentation shows that emotional states are real, and are characterized by physical changes in the brain.
God, however, leaves no evidence of His existance, and provides noe for us to reproducibly test. Those of us who have had religious and supernatural experiences cannot reproduce them for others, and God is apparently no longer in the practive of calling down fire from Heaven upon request. No experimentation can be done to prove the existance of God.
SInce ID and Creationism do not describe a mechanism, do not produce predictions, and are not falsifiable, they are not science. Neurology (and by extension theories involving "love") describes the mechanism by which humans feel emotion, predicts that there should be changes in the brain during different emotional states, and is falsifiable if those predictions do not hold true. Love is a scientifically observed phenomenon described by the science of neurology.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wolf, posted 09-02-2005 12:46 PM Wolf has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 8 of 15 (239987)
09-02-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wolf
09-02-2005 1:48 PM


Wolf,
Rahvin gives some good information. Also check out works by Dr. Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist that has specifically studied love and other emotions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wolf, posted 09-02-2005 1:48 PM Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Wolf, posted 09-02-2005 2:36 PM dsv has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 15 (239998)
09-02-2005 2:34 PM


I suspect...
Based on this evidence that one could claim science proves God is real because neuroligical pathways are stimulated during religious experience.
No, science has not proven Love is real and cannot prove it. Maybe they can claim to prove that a possible fantasy called love is real.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 09-02-2005 3:24 PM randman has not replied
 Message 12 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 3:52 PM randman has not replied

  
Wolf
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 15 (240000)
09-02-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by dsv
09-02-2005 2:07 PM


Thank you for all the help and info... I will let her know and have her read that rather lengthy report!

"A Dwarf on a Giants Shoulder sees the Furthest of the Two!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 2:07 PM dsv has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 11 of 15 (240023)
09-02-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
09-02-2005 2:34 PM


Re: I suspect...
Based on this evidence that one could claim science proves God is real because neuroligical pathways are stimulated during religious experience.
You sorely tempt me to say things that will get me suspended.
You are obviously wrong.
The fact that neurological pathways are stimulated during a religious experience only proves that the subjects feel like they are having a religious experience. Religious experiences in experiments of this nature have produced a wide variety of results, including visions of various deities, as well as nothing at all other than a "feeling."
Here is an article you may find relevant. Note that the subjects had religious experiences related to what they already believed, up to the atheist having no "visions" at all.
When neurologists test the pathways that represent fear and aggression, and the subjects display abject terror or feelings of extreme violence, does this prove that there is a horrible monster in the room to be afraid of? Of course not! It proves only that the feeling exists, nothing more.
No, science has not proven Love is real and cannot prove it. Maybe they can claim to prove that a possible fantasy called love is real.
Because love is an emotion, proof that such a feeling exists proves that love exists. Your way of thinking seems to suggest that "love" is an external entity, like a Cupid. Science has proven that there is an emotion called "love," and have quantified examples of its effect on the brain.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 2:34 PM randman has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 12 of 15 (240031)
09-02-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
09-02-2005 2:34 PM


Re: I suspect...
Based on this evidence that one could claim science proves God is real because neuroligical pathways are stimulated during religious experience.
No, science has not proven Love is real and cannot prove it. Maybe they can claim to prove that a possible fantasy called love is real.
I see where you might draw this conclusion but it's a little misleading.
God isn't the emotion. The idea is that God "speaks" (or otherwise interacts) with the subject and therefore the individual feels love, happiness, satisfaction, et cetera. That is the actual neurological activity, not the God itself.
Just as if one sees a ghost their brain activity would most likely reflect a reaction but this does not in any way prove the existence of the ghost.
Edit: Oops, should have read the post above. Anyway, I'm of basically the same opinion.
This message has been edited by dsv, Friday, September 02, 2005 03:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 2:34 PM randman has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 13 of 15 (240058)
09-02-2005 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by dsv
09-02-2005 1:32 PM


I don't get it
What is "love" here?
Damasio separates between emotions (summarily unlearned behaviors associated with specific situations) and feelings (what it FEELS like when you emote).
Wolf, are you asking about "love" the emotion or "love" the feeling?
Everybody here is answering your question about "love" the EMOTION. I don't think your wife is asking about that at all. She's asking about love the FEELING.
And that's not something that can (currently) be proven. That's the "hard problem" (I think this is David Chalmers' phrase) of cognition, and we don't have a handle on it.
Ben
AbE: dsv, I wrote this as a reply to you, but it turned more into a "general reply." So if you're confused why I chose to reply directly to your post... yeah, it turned out weird. Sorry about that.
This message has been edited by Farva, Friday, 2005/09/02 03:32 PM

I don't want a large Farva, I want a goddamn liter-a-cola.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 1:32 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 7:10 PM Ben! has replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 14 of 15 (240069)
09-02-2005 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Ben!
09-02-2005 6:31 PM


Re: I don't get it
Farva (Ben):
This actually deals with my area of study. Not to say that means anything I say makes any sense at all but I will attempt to shed some light on your questions.
What is "love" here?
Well, technically "love" isn't really anything. What happens, both physically and mentally, when we love greatly depends on the society in which we live. However, we can measure the neurological response to the feeling associated with the situations in which "love" is commonly used to describe. Affection, commitment, intimacy, passion, et cetera.
"Love" is just a term that describes a feeling and the resulting behavior.
Everybody here is answering your question about "love" the EMOTION. I don't think your wife is asking about that at all. She's asking about love the FEELING.
It's all the same actually. At the primitive level we're talking about reproduction and biologically implanted family bonds, just like hunger. Most of the behavior associated behavior of love has nothing to do with neuroscience and everything to do with culture. Certainly love is expressed differently around the world.
So back to the beginning, what we measure is the reaction of the brain in "love" situations. This proves that this activity is happening and that the subject does have an observable and verifiably different reaction to people he/she loves to those he/she does not.
I would consider this to be proof for the original poster's wife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Ben!, posted 09-02-2005 6:31 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-02-2005 7:28 PM dsv has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 15 of 15 (240075)
09-02-2005 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dsv
09-02-2005 7:10 PM


Re: I don't get it
DSV,
Thanks for the info... kind of. I kind of feel like you ignored what I was saying.
Do you know what I mean by Chalmer's "hard problem", or how / why Damasio separates emotion and feeling? The points you addressed didn't seem to mention these things at all.
At the primitive level we're talking about reproduction and biologically implanted family bonds, just like hunger. Most of the behavior associated behavior of love has nothing to do with neuroscience and everything to do with culture. Certainly love is expressed differently around the world.
So back to the beginning, what we measure is the reaction of the brain in "love" situations. This proves that this activity is happening and that the subject does have an observable and verifiably different reaction to people he/she loves to those he/she does not.
Nothing personal, but I'm quite sure if you said this to Wolf's wife, she's call it bullcrap.
She's talking about a feeling. Not behavior. Not "love-type situations". You're talking like a scientist, and limiting things to the observables.
Love is also a feeling. Feelings are inaccessible to observation. We can observe physical manifestations which correlate with subject's self-reports of feelings.
That's Chalmer's hard problem. Explaining experience itself. Why does it feel like ANYTHING?
I doubt you're going to agree to this. But I'll put it out there once at least.
Peace man.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dsv, posted 09-02-2005 7:10 PM dsv has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024