hypervalent_iodine Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 ! Moderator Note Try and stay on topic, please.
Alan McDougall Posted January 23, 2014 Posted January 23, 2014 I would say as an Engineer I qualify as a scientist of sorts and I go beyond belief as far as love is considered, I know that I love very many people , some of which I would die for if such an event ever came to pass. Is love just a function of my brain neurons, I really don't care 'all I know is I love people profoundly" ? 1
Iwonderaboutthings Posted January 27, 2014 Author Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) This thread is now ridiculous. The question has been answered and any assertion that scientists don't believe in love is insulting: of course they do, they are not stupid. Continuing to assert that they do not is a breach of the rules. You have not proved that love exist. Can you???? Since you represent the whole of the science community " then" scientist are just as ridiculous as religious fanatics in their belief in a " loving god." 5 Truths about Love: God Loves Unconditionally http://www.cru.org/training-and-growth/classics/transferable-concepts/love-by-faith/02-5-truths-about-love-unconditional.htm Why don't scientists believe in God? http://www.compellingtruth.org/scientists-believe-God.html The point I am trying to make here is that their is an ongoing battle with science and religion all the time about this very subject, and yet both share common interest to their emotional attractions that defines their emotional happiness.. Personally I think " many scientist" abuse their political power on the denotation of god, but then religion does the same... That being the case, both sides are wrong.. Perhaps asking whether scientists believe in love, might be like asking whether they believe in anthropogenic global warming. Both questions being a breach of the rules? Isn't that related to Electrostatic Equilibrium, hence a balance? https://www.boundless.com/physics/heat-and-heat-transfer/global-warming/greenhouse-gases-and-global-warming/ I believe that is based on the notion of " time" a balance dependent variable. Unfortunately it is the same throughout the entire universe. Time cannot be proven to exist, like love, so their is no breach here. Infact we are talking about something that does not exist, so then what type of discussion is this??? Can you please hold back on the Galileo syndrome posting - whether posts are against our rules is quite clearly judged by reading our rules which are open for any one to read at any time. http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules Questions of Science are always acceptable - and we have an ongoing thread on the validity of anthropogenic climate change; but if you continue to fallaciously misrepresent the alternative viewpoint then you might be asked to desist. In this thread so far, it seems to me at least, those espousing a scientific perspective have been reasonable and engaged with alternative view, whereas there has been a significant movement to typecast scientists in an unfair and unrealistic light. For your guidance around 99.5percent of scientists who publish in the climate sciences agree that the evidence backs up the hypothesis that mankind has caused a shift in climate - so yes, in as much as the question is well-formed (it isn't), scientists do believe in anthropogenic climate change I really don't mean to barge in on what you just mentioned, but I cannot resist to ask. How does mankind assist in the depletion of the Ozone Layer?? I heard hairsprays, then I hear air-conditioners, then I hear gasoline for cars... But with all due respects, aren't these products created by scientist??? Yes, I do know about alternative and natural ways of energy, however these are quite costly, forcing some to continue to use these harsh and non friendly earth products... I don't believe I am getting off topic here and If I am please excuse, but aren't these a by product of love? IE, hairspray: I love my hair to look a certain way , it gets me all the attention I desire. Good one for commercials air-conditioners: I love to feel comfortable on hot summer " nights." gas: I love to sport my new camaro Seems like they all involve " love." So then perhaps love is the issue for air pollution too?? YIKES! Do you mean that because 99.5% of scientists who publish in the climate sciences agree with the currently fashionable hypothesis, then they must be right. Are scientific questions decided on the principle of a majority verdict? of coarse they are Edited January 27, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -2
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 ! Moderator Note Iwonderaboutthings,Stay on topic. This is not a thread about God and the tangent to climate science is about as absurd. Any posts that bring this up again will be trashed.
Iwonderaboutthings Posted January 27, 2014 Author Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I would say as an Engineer I qualify as a scientist of sorts and I go beyond belief as far as love is considered, I know that I love very many people , some of which I would die for if such an event ever came to pass. Is love just a function of my brain neurons, I really don't care 'all I know is I love people profoundly" ? One thing is apparent. Time seems to evolve us into loving relations, and when time is negative love becomes hate... For example, someone whom finds out they have been cheated on, " later in time finds out" then has a broken heart, maybe the relation brakes up whom knows.. You ask love as a function of your brain? may be so, this example worked like a derivative traveling backwards in time linked to a memory in your brain, while the heart beats with "time." Maybe that is a dumb way of putting it for something that does not " exist" this being the case my example is wrong.. Edited January 27, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -2
Iwonderaboutthings Posted January 28, 2014 Author Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) It is only obvious: That no one in the entire world can proof love's physical existence... This being the case and fact here I present 2 examples of Hypocrisy. Religion: I love god cause god loves me. Science: I love my family cause they love me.. Religion: Scientist believe in evolution and not god, they are wrong! Science: Religion cannot prove the existence of god! But both science and religion believe in love?????? I think the matter is perfectly clear here.... YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GIVE ME ALL THE NEGATIVE RATINGS YOU WANT.. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE " FACTS" MOTHER NATURE DON'T WORK LIKE THAT [PERIOD] Edited January 28, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings -2
Endy0816 Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Meh, you don't have to reach far at all for a scientific reason for love. Different chemicals produced naturally by the body have addictive qualities. You associate a person with that high and you have love. In my own opinion love for our species has an additional intellectual component, but the chemical basis is pretty straightforward. EDIT: Cross posted with iNow. But his is better so go read his instead Edited January 28, 2014 by Endy0816
iNow Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) It is only obvious: That no one in the entire world can proof love's physical existence... If one defines love as the release of oxytocin and dopamine and seratonin in various ways across various neurocortical systems, then if one sees increases in those chemicals in response to being with a child, or a partner, or friend... then "love's physical existence" has very much been demonstrated to exist. You can make ridiculous assertions all you want and do a bunch of hand waving, but ignorance is not a valid substitute for a rational explanation rooted in our study of neurobiology and sociology. EDIT: Cross posted with Endy. Edited January 28, 2014 by iNow
Arete Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 This being the case and fact here I present 2 examples of Hypocrisy. What you are presenting here is that no method will give you a precise explanation of a noun that is used in a nebulous manner. You've used a vast range of examples of love describing a breadth of emotions - demonstrating that in the English language we use the term "love" to describe a variety of emotions. Expecting a precise explanation of a vague term is somewhat naive. Similarly, if I expected a scientific definition of the term "post" inclusive of things which hold up lamps, things that soldiers stand at, things which fences are comprised of, notes displayed in public places, a metallic fitting attached to an electrical device, a football play and the metal stem of an earring, I would be left wanting, or with a host of scientific explanations for a host of completely unrelated things which happen to be described in lay speech using the same word. Similarly, if you use "love" in a generic, all encompassing sense rather than a specific sense, you can't expect an all encompassing explanation. The failure is actually on your end for being obtuse.
Jake1 Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Love is real, as we can feel it. We know it's caused by the brain, but then again we don't know what causes consciousness, so we don't know why we are aware of love (or anything, for that matter). None of this has anything to do with God or a soul, neither of which is supported by much evidence. You don't have to know the exact cause of love to know it's real.
chadn737 Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I'm not fond of generalizations of the views of scientists, as if they are a monolithic group, rather than the reality being that they are a collection of individuals with very disparate views on a great many subjects.
Iwonderaboutthings Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 I'm not fond of generalizations of the views of scientists, as if they are a monolithic group, rather than the reality being that they are a collection of individuals with very disparate views on a great many subjects My OP has nothing to do with what you are fond of, the OP is, do scientist believe in love???? DO THEY??? AND IF SO, CAN THEY PROVIDE PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE?? Why is it so difficulty to get a yes or no answer from so many whom claim to be educated in such a rigorous and disciplined field....Jeeeeeeeeeeeez! -3
Arete Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Why is it so difficulty to get a yes or no answer from so many whom claim to be educated in such a rigorous and disciplined field....Jeeeeeeeeeeeez! There's a bunch of reasons: a) you asked two questions in your OP: Aren't these what create human to human compassion? I feel however, that scientist don't love their children, do not love as in marriage? b) You asked a total of 37 additional questions in your follow up posts. Claiming you asked a single, simple question is patently ridiculous. IE God teaches people to love each other through religious beliefs, rather this is true or false, it appears that scientist fallow this same similarity??? They can love then??? if so, is this a unique type of love? Or is Love something universal? In other words, is the love scientist feel " not the same as the love god and religion teaches people to have for each other??? SERIOUSLY??? I see the same principles with time. On regards of humans being naturally selected, is there or can there ever be a scientific way to prove this? What really bothers me about all this in general is that humans have their own " dogmas" rules laws styles and etc, and yet they all can share love????? HOW SO??? So then, what would evolution have to do with love?? humans are animals with frontal lobe brain usages, I guess natural selection??? However, since emotions are intangible, how can anyone define them and or prove they exists??? Otherwise there is no exist " period." ??? Was that right of me to state?? What does " professionally" have to do with physical facts?? Does this mean I need to make their comment any less??? Rather someone gets paid to prove a fact or not, the fact is still a fact, or am I confused on this??? You mention that this person is still a student and does not know the whole of physics?? What does it look like? Does it have a color? Can you touch this " physically? Does it have mass??? I'm sorry are these the protocols of science or am I confused on this??? Why do so many describe this emotion with " intangible explanations??? Doesn't serotonin react to sunlight??? "Physiological" reactions of negative and positive thinking perhaps? How so??? So then the big question???? What then are emotions???? Could they exists in another dimension such as time?? You have not proved that love exist. Can you???? Isn't that related to Electrostatic Equilibrium, hence a balance? Infact we are talking about something that does not exist, so then what type of discussion is this??? How does mankind assist in the depletion of the Ozone Layer?? But with all due respects, aren't these products created by scientist??? I don't believe I am getting off topic here and If I am please excuse, but aren't these a by product of love? Seems like they all involve " love." So then perhaps love is the issue for air pollution too?? You ask love as a function of your brain? But both science and religion believe in love?????? c) Those follow up questions contain a rather extraordinary series of goalpost shifts, baseless assertions, outright falsehoods and assorted other logical fallacies. Thus your argument is rather convoluted, difficult to follow, full of logical voids and tangents. As a result, it takes some (seemingly wasted) effort to address the multitude of questions and argumentative failures in your posts. And to counter, why is it so hard for you to understand that all "scientists" have in common is their profession? You are generalizing about what a diverse group of people may or may not believe and in doing so, almost certainly making false assumptions about what a large proportion of them do or don't think. Edited January 30, 2014 by Arete 2
chadn737 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 My OP has nothing to do with what you are fond of, the OP is, do scientist believe in love???? DO THEY??? AND IF SO, CAN THEY PROVIDE PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE?? Why is it so difficulty to get a yes or no answer from so many whom claim to be educated in such a rigorous and disciplined field....Jeeeeeeeeeeeez! Have you ever heard of a hasty generalization? Claims like "Scientists do not believe in God" is a hasty generalization, because this is not true of all and is not an accurate representation. The question "Do scientists believe in love" is near impossible to answer because it depends first on what you mean by "believe" and secondly upon the individual scientist. Its a vague question.
Implicate Order Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Lately i get the notion that scientist " somehow" do not believe in love. Well that clearly is not the case with cognitive sciences. Here is an example. Of course scientists are interested in the why's of the human condition such as emotions. What they would try to avoid however are those very same subjective human emotions such as personal taste, spiritual preferences or opinions contaminating their unbiased objective investigations as these very notions tend to get in the way of good science. 1
Jake1 Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) I'm not fond of generalizations of the views of scientists, as if they are a monolithic group, rather than the reality being that they are a collection of individuals with very disparate views on a great many subjects. My OP has nothing to do with what you are fond of, the OP is, do scientist believe in love???? DO THEY??? AND IF SO, CAN THEY PROVIDE PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE?? Why is it so difficulty to get a yes or no answer from so many whom claim to be educated in such a rigorous and disciplined field....Jeeeeeeeeeeeez! In your ozone layer thread, I recently asserted that you were probably not a troll because you have too many posts on these forums. However, given that you don't seem to read more than the first few words of each post you reply to, you are either a troll who hasn't gotten bored after over a hundred posts, or you're just uncommonly lazy. And yes, we that know "love", or the feeling we define as love, exists. We feel it. We've decided to call it love. That's part of language and society, not part of science. And yes, scientists can provide evidence that all emotions (I don't know why you're so obsessed with love in particular) are connected to physical events in the brain. It's like asking "Do scientists believe in dreams, and can they prove they exist?" The answer is that although scientists have studied dreams and have explanations for how they work, almost everybody "believes" in dreams because almost everyone has dreams. You don't have to provide a scientific explanation for feelings and thoughts to believe in their existence! Edited January 31, 2014 by Jake1
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 In your ozone layer thread, I recently asserted that you were probably not a troll because you have too many posts on these forums. However, given that you don't seem to read more than the first few words of each post you reply to, you are either a troll who hasn't gotten bored after over a hundred posts, or you're just uncommonly lazy. ! Moderator Note Was there any point to this post other than to aggravate the OP? Try and keep your posts free of insults in the future and perhaps also include some relevant content next time. Iwonderaboutthings, I was going to leave it to members to point out your continuous shifting of the goal posts, but since I am here I would like to add an official warning to your posting. Telling people that they have failed to answer your questions when you keep changing or adding new questions with virtually every post you make is disingenuous and vaguely troll-like. If you came here only to soap box and not participate in honest discussion, be aware that we will suspend you from posting.
Jake1 Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Was there any point to this post other than to aggravate the OP? Try and keep your posts free of insults in the future and perhaps also include some relevant content next time. Iwonderaboutthings, I was going to leave it to members to point out your continuous shifting of the goal posts, but since I am here I would like to add an official warning to your posting. Telling people that they have failed to answer your questions when you keep changing or adding new questions with virtually every post you make is disingenuous and vaguely troll-like. If you came here only to soap box and not participate in honest discussion, be aware that we will suspend you from posting. My original post was meant to point out that Iwonderaboutthings ignored chadn737's post (except for the first four words) when replying to it. I edited my post to further explain why I disagree with Iwonderaboutthings. I'd also like to point out that while you went with "vaguely troll-like" I went with "either a troll or too lazy to read entire posts". If you felt my wording was too strong, I'll try to use milder language in the future. Nevertheless, I didn't intend to insult or aggravate Iwonderaboutthings, but was simply providing two possible explanations for my observation that he or she blatantly ignores most of what people reply with. Edited January 31, 2014 by Jake1
Iwonderaboutthings Posted January 31, 2014 Author Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) There's a bunch of reasons: a) you asked two questions in your OP: b) You asked a total of 37 additional questions in your follow up posts. Claiming you asked a single, simple question is patently ridiculous. c) Those follow up questions contain a rather extraordinary series of goalpost shifts, baseless assertions, outright falsehoods and assorted other logical fallacies. Thus your argument is rather convoluted, difficult to follow, full of logical voids and tangents. As a result, it takes some (seemingly wasted) effort to address the multitude of questions and argumentative failures in your posts. And to counter, why is it so hard for you to understand that all "scientists" have in common is their profession? You are generalizing about what a diverse group of people may or may not believe and in doing so, almost certainly making false assumptions about what a large proportion of them do or don't think. I 100% disagree, the reason for this is because science is the assertion " laws" of mother nature, therefore G and c are constants, although many argue about these constants in " theory and postulates"to be inclusive they have been " proven"' physically as constants so far. Perhaps that is another way of looking at my rambling In regards to my additional 37 questions, they are thus regarded to the belief in love and its existence shared by " everyone" regardless of life style and or beliefs, however the physical evidence has not yet be " found" to support " anyone's belief and or affirmations. Love seems to be only " valid" for those whom are politically correct in their dogmas, depriving others of such experience. Thus science and the whole of humanity cannot prove love exists at all. Making the assertion that all of them have no clue about " physical attraction." Since this is the case, I assume the whole of physics must be incorrect as well as per Newtonian Mechanics... How so? well, G and c are " too" not physically proven, thus only remain as un-seen forces F= ma, Force is a product of two interactions, the force is what I refer to here. True discoveries are made when you are able to consider everything you have known to be wrong... So, can Love some way be proven to physically exist? And if so, would we need to buy it like all scientific discoveries??? Have you ever heard of a hasty generalization? Claims like "Scientists do not believe in God" is a hasty generalization, because this is not true of all and is not an accurate representation. The question "Do scientists believe in love" is near impossible to answer because it depends first on what you mean by "believe" and secondly upon the individual scientist. Its a vague question. I Don't mean to get graphic here but let me give some examples: Love making for instance can be experienced by man with man , man with woman, woman with woman and even woman and another man or another woman. What makes this wrong or right? at this point whom cares Gay men can adopt, heterosexuals can naturally conceive and a man that is sterile in his marriage can also adopt and vise versa. I hope you get the point here... What makes this however right or wrong is dogmas and discrimination, privations on something that no one on earth as of yet can prove to exist " love." While some denote love for gays, many denote love for " mythical beliefs systems" and yet as you can see, Love is shared regardless. As per my deciding in "Do Scientist believe in love" OP I chose scientist because they have more validity on phenomena, physics and many other areas of rigorous study... As per regards to" God" sorry but I have been warned not to mention " the loving god of religion" Well that clearly is not the case with cognitive sciences. Here is an example. Of course scientists are interested in the why's of the human condition such as emotions. What they would try to avoid however are those very same subjective human emotions such as personal taste, spiritual preferences or opinions contaminating their unbiased objective investigations as these very notions tend to get in the way of good science. I 50% disagree with you...It takes a pretty good scientist to have that skill type mentally, good scientist are rare these days. You words: unbiased objective investigations seems non applicable to my OP, as you can see I may be even kicked out of this forum ! Moderator Note Was there any point to this post other than to aggravate the OP? Try and keep your posts free of insults in the future and perhaps also include some relevant content next time. Iwonderaboutthings, I was going to leave it to members to point out your continuous shifting of the goal posts, but since I am here I would like to add an official warning to your posting. Telling people that they have failed to answer your questions when you keep changing or adding new questions with virtually every post you make is disingenuous and vaguely troll-like. If you came here only to soap box and not participate in honest discussion, be aware that we will suspend you from posting. Understood, but when members highlight "certain" areas of my comments and or replies giving focus to just that part I have stated earlier, it is very very hard for me to stay consistent,,, I will do my best, thanks. In your ozone layer thread, I recently asserted that you were probably not a troll because you have too many posts on these forums. However, given that you don't seem to read more than the first few words of each post you reply to, you are either a troll who hasn't gotten bored after over a hundred posts, or you're just uncommonly lazy. And yes, we that know "love", or the feeling we define as love, exists. We feel it. We've decided to call it love. That's part of language and society, not part of science. And yes, scientists can provide evidence that all emotions (I don't know why you're so obsessed with love in particular) are connected to physical events in the brain. It's like asking "Do scientists believe in dreams, and can they prove they exist?" The answer is that although scientists have studied dreams and have explanations for how they work, almost everybody "believes" in dreams because almost everyone has dreams. You don't have to provide a scientific explanation for feelings and thoughts to believe in their existence! I have served as a CGI instructor, teacher and mentor and have donated about 4 years of free work labor to disadvantaged people for free, at my " young age" I serve the elderly, take care of my mother, am a woman's activist, humanitarian, and practice selflessness, since the age of 13 I have helped people in broken relationships and continue doing so. I have nursed back to health people with aids and other health conditions and inspired them to go back to school and become what they " dream of." Those are just my hobbies Sorry I have not read the post on the Ozone layer yet I just got on my computer about and hour ago I think, I will try to check this out soon for ya before I log off, otherwise I will check it out later.. I find it very difficulty at times to answer questions from " multiple members." The main reason for this is because when I reply to a comment their can be " another member replying and not the member I replied to. Also, I am still trying to figure out this multiple quote function they have here. Mine from what I see, only allows to reply to one post at a time. Also how do you " copy" my quotes and focus on those areas in those grey sections??? I don't know how to do that, or it does not allow me. Edited January 31, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
Arete Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) I 100% disagree You disagree that the beliefs of scientists are heterogeneous? If that's the assertion your'e making (it's hard to tell because you quoted my entire post) it's one of the more absurdly wrong assertions I've seen here. Also, trivially disproven. I.e. Francis Collins (director of the NIH, pioneer of genomics) is an evangelical Christian, where as Richard Dawkins (Emeritus professor at Oxford, geneticist) is a staunch atheist. science is the assertion " laws" of mother nature You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what science actually is. Science is not the "assertion of "laws"" as you put it. It's simply a methodology for investigating the natural world. Scientific laws are simply sets of observations which tend to be invariant - e.g. Boyle's law states that there is an inverse correlation between the volume of a gas, and the pressure of a gas. Making the assertion that all of them have no clue about " physical attraction." Since this is the case, I assume the whole of physics must be incorrect as well as per Newtonian Mechanics... 1. You shifted the goalposts on what you defined "love" as multiple times - a logical fallacy known as equivocation, as to avoid any scientific explanation of it. 2. "Physical attraction" is explainable by science. Mate choice experiments in humans are numerous. Here's a book on that subject alone. So this assertion is just plain wrong. 3. "Science can't explain X, therefore I can ignore its explanation of Y" is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And if so, would we need to buy it like all scientific discoveries? The point of scientific theories is that the data is made available and statistical tests are used to validate hypotheses. The entire point of the scientific method is that you don't have to just "buy" what it says. Edited January 31, 2014 by Arete
Iwonderaboutthings Posted February 1, 2014 Author Posted February 1, 2014 Meh, you don't have to reach far at all for a scientific reason for love. Different chemicals produced naturally by the body have addictive qualities. You associate a person with that high and you have love. In my own opinion love for our species has an additional intellectual component, but the chemical basis is pretty straightforward. EDIT: Cross posted with iNow. But his is better so go read his instead I think I agree with you thanks! You disagree that the beliefs of scientists are heterogeneous? If that's the assertion your'e making (it's hard to tell because you quoted my entire post) it's one of the more absurdly wrong assertions I've seen here. Also, trivially disproven. I.e. Francis Collins (director of the NIH, pioneer of genomics) is an evangelical Christian, where as Richard Dawkins (Emeritus professor at Oxford, geneticist) is a staunch atheist. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what science actually is. Science is not the "assertion of "laws"" as you put it. It's simply a methodology for investigating the natural world. Scientific laws are simply sets of observations which tend to be invariant - e.g. Boyle's law states that there is an inverse correlation between the volume of a gas, and the pressure of a gas. 1. You shifted the goalposts on what you defined "love" as multiple times - a logical fallacy known as equivocation, as to avoid any scientific explanation of it. 2. "Physical attraction" is explainable by science. Mate choice experiments in humans are numerous. Here's a book on that subject alone. So this assertion is just plain wrong. 3. "Science can't explain X, therefore I can ignore its explanation of Y" is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The point of scientific theories is that the data is made available and statistical tests are used to validate hypotheses. The entire point of the scientific method is that you don't have to just "buy" what it says. Before I go on here: How do I reply to only one of your questions and highlight that area so when I comment you can know which " area " of your response I am referencing??? In other words: Do you see my previous comments and how you focus on areas of interested highlighted in the grey boxes?? How do you do that??? I see the button " reply" then I see multiple reply.. I am unsure how to do this..
disarray Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) I would agree that it is virtually impossible to come up with a satisfactory definition of "love' for purposes of the discussion. Indeed, the other main term "science" (which is the other main term in this question) is also a rather flexible one itself. In practice the word "love" is used in so many places in so many different ways as to make the question unwieldy. And are we talking about all scientists, or do you mean "Is there any information that has been gleaned using any scientific methodology that would confirm that love exists." But that is only the first step. Are we referring to a person who says they love their pet poodle or almond chocolate? Are we referring to a mother who says she loves her newborn baby more than any other baby in the world (but then, as it happens in some cases) finds out that the nurse gave her the wrong baby? Are we talking about a person such as Romeo who claims he experienced the deepest love at first sight, much to the annoyance of the Friar who thinks that the emotion Romeo presents is more like infatuation? Not to mention that the Greeks identified several distinct types of love, e.g., erotic, altruistic. I suspect that the underlying sentiment to this question is whether it is reasonable to claim that "non material" "things" such as "love" exist, based upon our own intuition and spiritual faculties, even though "materialistic-minded" scientists, using their limited 5 senses, are unable to find. As far as many biologists, neurologists, and social scientists are concerned, much (and some would say "all") of what people self-identify as love can be explained in terms of physical processes developed over the millennia by virtue of evolution and modified by personal and social circumstances. There is at least one book out about the possibility of the existence of altruistic/empathetic love..but I think that the closest one can come to getting serious consideration from scientists about such an ephemeral topic in the sense of love being an actual "thing" in the universe is a discussion about the existence of "consciousness." From there one can perhaps speculate about the modes of consciousness, e.g., empathy, as Sartre attempted to do in something of a quasi-scientific manner (based on the quasi-science of Husserl et al.) in his book "Being and Nothingness" and his later work on ethics. Edited May 3, 2016 by disarray
Lyudmilascience Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 the soul god spirits have not been proven to exist and probably never will be so you might think that thoes things create compassion but they might really not, becised even if they do every person would have a soul you cant be born without one, you would be a robot. you wrote"They don't believe in God. They don't believe in the human soul. They appear to have no connection linked with anything that deals with " emotional connections."" its ok to not believe in god, it dosent make you immoral or not compassionate not believing in a soul dosent make you not have one, and believing on one dosent make you have a soul love dose not come from souls you dont have good evidence for them not getting emotional connections, they get connections just like anyone elce. infact I would claim that some scientists, the ones I personally know have more love and better understand love because they are very interested in researcheing and understanding it and they are picky with relationships they need them to be filled with love, like the saying work hard play hard. but this is just anecdotal evidence.
blue89 Posted May 30, 2016 Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) ha haha haha haha :-) :-) I have not read the text given yet. but I would explain my idea only according to thread "I absolutley do ot believe " haha haha haha now , I concentrate on my research but... if anyone asks , I think I will try with my too much funny personality :-) meanwhile this thread will have been the cutest /the most pretty I have ever seen and/or I will have ever seen :-) and of course ,I am sure ,I will be communicating entertaining funnily writing to this thread this subject is very very pretty/entertaining. Edited May 30, 2016 by blue89
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now