Craer

In this case my word choice was so as to avoid the use of the word 'feeling' and instead use its very definition emotion. Oxford said: Feeling of Affection Feeling - an emotional state or reaction Affection - a gentle feeling of fondness or liking I said: Emotional State of Attraction Emotional - of or relating to a person's emotions State - the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time Attraction - the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something. My attempts to clarify that you refuse to acknowledge is not my problem. It is the logical fallacy of the Red Herring http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html Topic A being the topic stated by the OP Topic B being this whole clarification of my definition which can be found in any dictionary. Some of this could also be seen as the Straw Man Fallacy Can we now return to the OP's question of if scientists believe in love?

The definition you claim I came up with is the exact same thing as the Oxford definition. I used different words yes certainly. English has multiple ways of saying the same things using distinctly different words.

As far as unaddressed questions are concerned, would you care to define love so we can move on? As for my attempts to clarify in the face of your stonewalling tactics I have no answer other then previously stated.

Anyone care to take a shot at why it's ethically important to use proper etiquette?

"an emotional state of attraction" is a reference to the definition of love as stated by Daedalus via the Oxford Dictionary. If you would like to define love for us please do. The deletion was due largely to the fact that I realized I was defending myself to someone using logical fallacy as the basis for part of their argument. Love will need to be defined in an acceptable manner for all parties before this discussion can progress. Is the Oxford definition acceptable? How about as defined by the Dalai Lama, "Love is the absence of judgment". Is emotion no longer an acceptable synonym for 'feeling'?

The moderators try John. This topic is more in regards to proper Etiquette as defined in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/ And the ways "trolls" apply logical fallacies in order to discredit an individual.

Emotional attraction is still a bit ambiguous certainly, but then so is 'Love" PET gives a measurement to various emotions. An 'emotion' triggers activity in the brain. Neutral emotion was distinguishable in the prefrontal cortex, thalamus, hypothalamus and midbrain. Unpleasant emotion in areas such as bilateral occipito-temporal cortex, cerebellum, left parahippocampal gyrus, hippocampus, and amygdala. Pleasant was isolated from nuetral but not from unpleasant in the left caudate nucleus. Ref: Neuroanatomical correlates of pleasant and unpleasant emotion 1997, http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/pubs/1997/neuroanat_pleasant_unpleasant.pdf

...

This subject is not a mathematical one until measurements are found for things we can't yet measure. You are also suggesting psychology has no validity?

Love, is an emotional state of attraction. Science does separate emotion(s) from mathematical certainty. This by no means stops emotion(s) from existing within mathematics. Or math existing within emotion(s) for that matter.

I would consider it a linguistic operation, within the first dimension you have a language similar to binary all on or off positions. As you progress through the other dimensions the first language is conjugated or paraphrased into a simple( r) string with (more)complex implications.

@ Stetson I seem to have run out of up-votes for the day.

Poverty is an equation of the monetary system which places value on life based off of superfluous factors amidst realist factors. To curb it would change everything we know.