Can you explain love with science?

[KagakuOtaku]

In some ways, yes. At least, you can explain it physically and emotionally.

[roundnumbersarealwaysfalse]

Its a reaction of chemicals in the brain.

 

Ok.

 

But still. Is this the question we are supposed to debate in this thread? I seriously don't understand what TS is meaning when s/he states that s/he thinks there is "some spirituality that cant be explain in science". That is, what the heck are we debating?

[Ringer]

This book goes into good detail about the chemicals and everything that are involved in romantic love.

[shelby]

I assume this thread is allowing speculative responses, because love is an abstract concept.

 

In addition to the mating motivation theories, there is a speculative divine possibility.

 

I have suggested that God is the sum of all matter, which works within my universal theory. God didn't create itself, it never existed at the origin in the sense of the perceived world, because matter (note I didn't write 'mass') does not exist in space-time until it is observed. We create God every day in the perceived world. One plausible explanation of why we are created out of matter, because it is the only way God (sum of all matter) can be perceived (loved?).

My research has added support to the theory that the fundamental matter of the universe is infinite disorder, meaning infinite possibilities[1]. There is nothing outside, because there is no outside. Infinite possibilities includes everything, and explains how the universe wraps onto itself topologically via possibilities, such that the perceived possibilities are always trending to maximum (Second Law of Thermodynamics stated in 1856). Do not think of boundaries in terms of space-time, as space and time are subsets of the realm of infinite possibilities. Review my explanation of the singularity, i.e. black hole, to grasp the how disorder maps space-time back onto itself recursively.

Thus, if my universal theory is true, then it logically follows that the definition of God that I have provided is true, i.e. no assumptions exist since my definition of God is simply a statement of my universal theory.

As to how the matter got there, no human can know, because it is logically impossible for any one to present any theory for the universe, which also explains what it outside the universe. Any theory of the universe will by definition explain only what it explains, i.e. it will only explain what is inclusive of what it explains. The fact that no human can ever know what put the matter there, is for me the proof of a God. How can something be, that was not made. What besides a God could make infinite disorder.

Science is headed for major humbling as the Quantum Information theory is generalized with my Theory of the Universe[1], and scientists are one day forced to accept that they can never know the source of the fundamental matter. Those who ridicule my concept of God or otherwise turn off to my following rational thought, do not understand that the scientific method is a faith that long or fat-tail and Planck's-tail don't exist. At least my universal theory has no such holes and explains the entire extent of the universe. I can find no other theory that does. Even Planck, Einstein, Schrödinger, and Popper understood that assertion of lack of falsifiability is an ephemeral condition, which is not to discourage theoretical investigations:

http://en.wikipedia....#Religious_view

http://en.wikipedia....r.27s_objection

[lemur]

it's funny that everyone responds with regards to a certain kind of love, assuming that it is the defining kind. When people talk about "giving love," it can mean anything from feeding a child or friend to consoling someone to a general feeling of happiness in everything you do as a result of having spent time with a "loved one." I'm sure you could operationalize various kinds of love and distill them to specific ingredients including hormones, psychological mechanisms, and social patterns. Why does it make people feel happy to play with a baby, even when it's not their own? There are complex cognitive-emotional patterns involved, which include biochemical responses, PLUS many people probably wouldn't acknowledge the feeling they get from someone else's baby as love, just because they would feel it is inappropriate to love someone else's baby - so there's some reporting/perception bias there too.

[Marat]

You have to take a step back on this entire question and first ask what is the difference between 'explaining' something and providing the cause of something. Sure, we can in principle demonstrate all the biological correlates of the experience of falling in love, but does this really 'explain' the peculiar feeling rather than just specify a list of physical processes which run parallel to that feeling? Perhaps a poem by Keats comes closer to explaining love than the specification of the changes in vasopressin and serotonin levels that accompany the sensation of love.

[random]

Well my feeling is we can explain love with science thoroughly and justly. Provided the psychological aspects are considered sound and not just speculatory. Throughout history we have seen a variety within what is considered a desirable mate We also know of those who considerably lower their standards with regard to physical attraction because of their own low self esteem. This suggests to me that love can be learned. Since there is no scientific study of this and to do so would be unethical (r.e. a control group brought up without demonstrated love and affection) we need to look throughout history and how societies views of relationships adapted and then altered what was considered to be love. Also some people are incapable of love for 1 psychological reason or another so we know love is certainly not a trait hard wired into our genes such as the need to mate is. We love because it feels good and when that stops we no longer love anymore. Pleasure is a chemical reaction as is the stress that ends love so it seems to me someone alot smarter and knowledgeable could put it all together in a easily understood format.

[jcmmanuel]

I'm a late reader here, but this is an interesting topic.

 

 

This is a essentially a philosophical question.

 

Science can, as always, inspect the underlaying biological / physical strata, the "wiring" of homo sapiens sapiens. But science is not meant to reduce our epistemology to the scientific method, it does not claim an authority on defining the essence of the human being in all its intricacies (and such a position would place us on dangerous grounds - we have been there, in Europe as well as the U.S.) One may describe the human being as 'technically' a carbon robot, but this cannot be the functional category by the means of which a scientist can identify, on the acount of his 'neighbor', who he 'is' and whether his neighbor's life is meaningful or meaningless, lovable or not. (If such opinion would have to be expressed, it would rather be up to jurisdiction, not science).

 

The word "spiritual" in this context is well chosen I think. Spirituality seems to foray into the domain of the mind. While the natural sciences find their gist mostly in (methodologial) naturalism, in other domains of science, neuroscientists and even astrophysicists have expressed a strong conjecture that the universe may be explicable as 'mind' rather than 'matter'. It is clear that today, answers from an ontological naturalism point of view are not the only acceptable answers anymore in the scientific world.

 

Human experience is not quantifiable. Science has never been developed with the aim to identify the very 'essense' of objects, let alone subjects, living beings. Science simply does not go there - reason why it took a while for parapsychology to be an accepted branch of science (by the AAAS) and we know it can't be approached in the same way as the 'exact' sciences. The same applies to sociology for instance (remember the 'fights' between natural scientists and sociologists - a thing of the past). Also, think humanities: will science replace it? There have been propositions. There were even propositions to eliminate psychology (Francis Crick's "molecular revolution" in psychology and neuroscience) - such plans are entirely off the table today as far as I know.

 

Science basically offers its methodology 'for free' to everyone who is curious - but 'curious' is already not a scientific statement - it is what caused us to invent science to begin with. Curiosity is also an aspect of love by the way - so there you go.

 

Life is an experience, not an experiment. The reason why we do NOT treat living beings as just objects in some field of study is some sort of 'faith' (not religious faith, but 'humanistic faith' in our own identity, our meaningfulness). We do not 'experiment' with humans (except for voluntary partaking in certain experiments) because we believe in the human experience as being a human right, we believe that creating meaning is a honorable human endeavor, we believe in love being more than its physical / biological substrate (certainly do most of us live their lives that way). If we wouldn't believe such things, it would be hard to argue how anyone would want to do science except for being in power or something along those lines. Fortunately the picture is not that bleak.

 

We know that love makes a big difference in most things we do, including science. Philosophically speaking it already follows that the science that we do (because we love it) cannot really 'explain' why we love or what love is - no more than the process of conception and birth can explain why 2 people love each other or what their love signifies. Science by the way does not try to explain particularities, it is aiming at generalities, and love cannot really fit within this plan. (In fact not a single aspect of 'humanism' fits within that plan - mankind is a "the sum is more than its parts" case). Yet, within the boundaries of our humanity, we may understand the birth process biologically, and parental love psychologically and socially.

 

Is it 90% wiring / 10% spirituality? It could be 99% wiring - but the 1% spirituality may still be what defines the essense of our human experience. If the proportional share of the spiritual aspect wouldn't be so very significant, we wouldn't have all those paintings and compositions - all this artistry, all thet poetry and proza portraying love and its effects in different ways. It seems that there's more love in the world than science - but even if this is not true, there will certainly be no science without love, although clearly there has been love before there was science.

[Marat]

With respect to Random's point, some historians of ideas would argue that romantic love for a partner is itself a cultural invention which first appeared in the songs of the Medieval Minnesaengers with their concept of the 'love-sick knight' in service of some noble Lady. Before that time, marriage was considered largely a matter of dynastic alliance between families, so concentration on the plan to have your son marry the daughter of the farmer who owned the fields next to yours to form a more profitable marriage-alliance simply displaced any possibility of romantic feelings. Other historians trace the origin of romantic love to Christianity's invention of the idea that the relationship between the Deity and mankind was one of love rather than primarily one of obedience, loyalty, etc.

[Ringer]

With respect to Random's point, some historians of ideas would argue that romantic love for a partner is itself a cultural invention which first appeared in the songs of the Medieval Minnesaengers with their concept of the 'love-sick knight' in service of some noble Lady. Before that time, marriage was considered largely a matter of dynastic alliance between families, so concentration on the plan to have your son marry the daughter of the farmer who owned the fields next to yours to form a more profitable marriage-alliance simply displaced any possibility of romantic feelings. Other historians trace the origin of romantic love to Christianity's invention of the idea that the relationship between the Deity and mankind was one of love rather than primarily one of obedience, loyalty, etc.

 

I would disagree, although marriage for love may be rather recent in most cultures that doesn't mean that romantic love is a cultural invention. I believe that stories such as the Illiad and Odyssey show romantic love as early as the first epic. Even Romeo and Juliet is a remake of an old Roman myth. The same goes for punishment for leaving a marriage for another spouse. Depending of course on what line you draw between lust and romantic love.

 

 

 

[jcmmanuel]

With respect to Random's point, some historians of ideas would argue that romantic love for a partner is itself a cultural invention which first appeared in the songs of the Medieval Minnesaengers with their concept of the 'love-sick knight' in service of some noble Lady. Before that time, marriage was considered largely a matter of dynastic alliance between families, so concentration on the plan to have your son marry the daughter of the farmer who owned the fields next to yours to form a more profitable marriage-alliance simply displaced any possibility of romantic feelings. Other historians trace the origin of romantic love to Christianity's invention of the idea that the relationship between the Deity and mankind was one of love rather than primarily one of obedience, loyalty, etc.

 

Yes, historically it seems that we can trace romantic love from what was called "courtly love", a phenomenon traceable in literature to the middle ages. This courtly love was then also based on the intent of sacrifice, not just what we now understand by "romantic" love, in other words there was more 'value' in it than just 'feelings'. One could also observe that the Christian environment where this seems to have originated, there was always the availability of the Jewish book Song of Songs (as this book had always been incorporated in the bible, as part of the old testament), and this book too may have helped to pave the way, because it is not only erotic in nature, but also to a certain extent 'proto-romantic'. It is also well known in theology that Song of Songs has been connected to the relationship between the Church (the 'bride') and Christ (the 'Bridegroom'), and this picture of bride / bridegroom began to emerge as a real prototype or example for the man / wife relationship precisely during the Middle Ages.

 

But, generally speaking, I would suggest that there was a more common human endeavor in this direction. I mean, even while a significant number of improvements have been emerging within 'Christian' cultures (or: among 'cultural Christians', as others may prefer to say), it doesn't mean that Christians invented this. Those of you who are familiar with the writings of C.S. Lewis will know that already Lewis observed that not everything in Christianity is uniquely Christian, or even uniquely Jewish. Even this powerful Christian apologist did NOT think that the God of monotheism was only active within these monotheist religions - a real God must necessarily have been much bigger than any written account about Him. But Christianity has at least asserted or amplified a number of good ideas and practices. As even Nietzsche endorsed.

 

"This suggests to me that love can be learned."

 

 

It's strange that you put it this way - or maybe rather fascinating. Because we also do not (yet) understand how the human species got its capability of learning. (There's a short tread on that one here, Why is the human-being the only animal which developed learning skill?). Depending on what you mean by "can be learned", the emotional part may of course be a candidate for the word learned too, but if we look at it from the emergence of "courtly love" as an ongoing, more intellectual aspect of love (mixed with such human qualities as respect, interest, curiosity, sacrifice, all of which require a level of education), the question still remains how science may explain that part - just as the learning skills itself are left for explanation so far. And the general problem with the natural sciences is that at this point they may offer insights on the necessary 'wiring' of homo sapiens - allowing these feelings or this intelligence to be 'carried' - but this wiring does not in itself offer a explanation for the richness and dynamics of ideas and learning. For instance science discovers aspects of attraction (the mechanism of body scent, for instance), but while that explains something about nature's biological protection mechanism, it doesn't explain love. No more than the physical laws for hertz frequencies explain a Bach sonata.

 

Even if we would think, at some point, that science explains love, all the 100 per cent of it, this will always remain the scientific side of the story - and we know that in this way of looking at things, reductionism was built-in by design. Those who invented science wanted to understand the generalities - but love cannot be captured in terms of generalities, it makes very particular / private choices, for one thing.

 

Therefore, it seems that we can only admit that at some point we learned to educate ourselves. But that, of course, is not a scientific statement - it is the other way round: it is the statement that explains why we invented science. That is what humans did. We "jumped out of the box of explanation", so to speak. This suggestion is of course a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

 

 

 

[Ahsan Iqbal]

I would need to make the distinction between romantic love and unconditional love, because I think different biological factors are involved. In short, my experience is that romantic love can have a "shelf-life", whereas unconditional love is a bond for life and for evolution (i.e. the survival of the species is dependent on the mother child bond).

 

 

Please would someone elaborate, what is a romantic love and what is an unconditional love. I don't understand these terms.