A Conversation for Love

a scientific look

Post 1

Researcher Din

After watching hours of the discovery chanel, and The Learning Chanel i have discovered a few things.

Love is an evil trick played on people by the brain. This trick has two goals: one, to give us a reason other than the fun of conseption to reproduce, and two to give as an irational way to decide who would make the best mother/father for ones child.

to suport the first part of the trick, usually when two people are in love they have an unnatchural urge to start a family.

and the second, it has been proven that when you look at a member of the oposite sex you subconshiouly asses them as the parent of your child. I dont know what our subconshios looks for, or its logic is, but this could explain many things, for example mabye a man's subconsious thinks large breasts will produce better milk (just a guess, i dont know if any reshearch done or its results on the topic of why guys like big boobs.)

In closing yes it is a very evil trick, but prehaps the human race wouldnt have survived so long without the need to reproduce it gives us

a scientific look

Post 2


you silly goose... The scientific eye does not see all. I realize its a nice safe place though, because there are rules and boundries and everything is classified and put into order and it all starts to make sence as this litle world of reason and logic and all its little puzzle peices start coming together and they all fit! they fit together like the tiles of the cold hard floor that I walk on at school.Things arent set in any way! everything it morphous! everthing is moving. some slower, some faster, all things are in a constant state of change! maybe that "constant state" isnt even "constant"! I dont know! All I know is that things kind of look like a slowly moving curvy bolb of blobiness, not "perfect" little squares, (when you put it on a different scale) and when you slam down the hard square portcullis of classification and organisation, you chop all the curvy edges (that all once fit to something else youve probably cassified) you confine it and you fail to see and FEEL it for what it really was. To see this done to a thing like "love" sickens me. Just let the sheyat flow man! feel it out. just let it go and ride the current! I know for a fact (well at least for me) thinking gets me in a world of trouble. Well, at any rate,I hope ive been able to be some kind of bridge between the safe cozy stable world of science(that one can be fun) and the realm of complete and utter

a scientific look

Post 3


oh yeah, and one more thing,
I happen to like small breasts!!!! Sweet, supple, firm, nicley shaped, sooo perky! OH YES SMALL BREASTS!!!
Not those saggy, nasty-ass nipple streached out to her armpits, floppin around ones that would like, get in the way of me giving her a hug or somthing. just gimmie a hand full thats all i need.

Thank you.
awww man she's gunna kill me

a scientific look

Post 4

Researcher Din

well, first science doesnt go and chop up the pieces so they fit, if something dowsnt fit they try a difrent piece and if that doesnt fit tey try another, ect. until they find one that does. the way i see it is most things are either more are less than they seem, very few things should be taken at face value. it is my opinion that the human brain is less than it seems. yes, it is very complicated and beond most understanding, but it is also rather small and basicly a bunch of chimical reactions and electrical signals. i dont think that there are some outside forces that effect much of acything that goes on in our heads. mabye there is, i dont think so. i think that most loves stem from a few places, the eyes, a system in the brain, i forget the name, but its twards the back and top, and from the sex organs. grr, ive gotta go now, ill finish later, but remember, nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool. or something i dont know, im sleepy, go away!

a scientific look

Post 5

Mark Rest

In the Amsterdam Science museum I read that love evolved on the plains of Africa. Children need an enormous amount of education to be able to fend for themselves. The argument went that the child that had both parents looking after it was more likely to propagate its genes.

A look from both sides

Post 6


As far as I can tell there's a little misunderstanding or unclarity here!
Love can be defined from a purely biologically view AS WELL as from a philosophical, phenomenological view - and the tricky thing with love is that from these two points of view it has very different reasons as well as consequences!!
A biologistically (NOT biologically!!) argumenting person would undoubdedly state that love has purely biological reasons as well as consequences.... but as we're all very likely to know it's not THAT easy because this view's explanation for the accompanying feelings and emotions is evenly a purely biological. Why are we feeling the way we are while falling in love?? Why should there be feelings and emotions anyway when our ancestors should have (supposedly) have done without it??? And - finally: What could be the evolutionary reason for "love" existing, when things could work without it?? So there definitely seems to be more to it than the biologistically reasoning person has to tell us!!
The philosopher on the other side would say that love is something like a "principle" that could perhaps even exist without anybody experiencing it - now that can only be crap as well (I think I won't have to go into detail...!).

But all that still leaves us perplexed and helpless concerning for a satisfying definition of the phenomenon "love".
Is it the first thing that applies or the second??
In my humble opinion it's both things that apply - to a certain degree of course!!

PS To Din: I think you're basically right with your statements.... Concerning the brainregions involved in "falling in love": As a matter of principle there are nearly ALL functional regions involved in ANY behaviour we show, so it seems oversimplifying when one claims to have found the region responsible for falling in love.

Chemical reactions not to be taken lightly!

Post 7

This Too Shall Pass

The most convincing evolutionary interpretation of love that I have been able to come up with states that its function is as a family bond. Love did not arise out of a need to teach children, but the other way around. What came first was a instinctive desire to aid other humans, particularly one's mate and their young. This has quite obvious evolutionary advantages, independant of any need to teach or learn languages. The reason I suspect that this "good of the community" instinct came first is the enormous amount of time that it takes a child to learn a language. Considering how long it takes now, when language is firmly established and is spoken around children constantly, the actual developement of the first language must have taken an immensly long time, and could only have happened if humans were already living in very close groups for extended periods of time (i.e. many years at the beginning of their lives, and again during the parenting stage). And so the bond of Love gave rise to human civilisation as we know it. It may follow that there can never be any species advanced enough to discover language which does not first discover Love. And without language, it is very possible that any serious analytical thought is impossible.

So, there you have it. According to me, a rabid scientist and nihilist all around, love, a "mere" chemical process, instinctive and irrational, is the basis for absolutely everything that could ever distinguish us from "lesser" animals. There's even evidence for this. Take a look at the community-oriented species living today. In particular, take a look at the apes and monkeys (Whom we did NOT evolve from. Apes, monkeys, and humans evolved from a common ancestor). They are the species that are closest to being able to develope a working language, and they show obvious, scientifically detectable (i.e. through analysing behaviour) signs of love. On the other hand, some people say that parrots are nearly capable of speech, and I don't have a clue what their social behaviours are.

At any rate, my point is this: You don't have to let science break things down into "mere" chemical processes. Love as explained by science can be just as magical and wonderful as any of the fairy-tale bullshite that's being used by pop culture to fertilize stress, lonliness, and general unhappiness with life the way it is, cultivating a need to go out and spend gobs of money on stuff that we don't need, don't want, and that won't make us any less miserable. You just have to be a little more realistic about it, that's all. It may even help you to be a healthier person in the end. I think so anyway, but that's probably just because all of those romantic ideas about love have fcked me up so bad recently.

If anyone would like to explore these ideas in more depth, please let me know. E-mail me if you like ([email protected]). I'm just itching to develope these a little more. And who knows, maybe I'll write my PhD thesis on love some day.

Also note that this is only my opinion of what love "is" or where it "came from", not what it "should be". That is another story for another day.

Chemical reactions not to be taken lightly!

Post 8


Despite the fact that I agree with most of the entries (i.e. love bites), I think its interesting to note that the majority of those entries are written by men who think that love bites. Complaining about love has become just as cheesy as singing it's praises. Perhaps the trick IS to stop thinking as one of you has already suggested. Each time you feel one of those dark, rough and scraggly thoughts about to rape your brain (and emotional well-being) go for a jog, or read a book about iridology (which, by the way, can tell you a surprising amount about the type of person you are and the TYPE of needs you have). As for love as an evolutionary tool; quite intruiging (sp?) but it begs for a thorough definition of love. What about the way a mother duck cares for and defends her ducklings? Is that love? If so, then one cannot argue that it is because of love that language (and hence scientific thought) has developed... unless ducks have language and scientific thought of their own, which is not entirely out of the question.

I don't think I had a point. I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents (being Canadian, that's not worth much these days).

Chemical reactions not to be taken lightly!

Post 9

This Too Shall Pass

I would say that the protection of a duckling by its mother could be called love (in some form or another). This being said, I would like to clarify; Love is not the *reason* that language has developed, it has simply allowed it to happen (language, having a very strong evolutionary advantage, could happen on its own given the right conditions). I am simply exploring the idea that without a family structure, language could not have developed (You would have a very hard time disproving this). This is assuming that love is a vital part of a family unit, which may be incorrect. (The working definition of love which I am using is this: "Interest in the lovee's well being which is exceeds that which would be expected if the interest were only in the direct good that the lovee can have for the lover". Of course this definition is full of holes. Of course it isn't the exact same kind of love that we experience today. But it could be that modern love is merely an evolution of this primitive relationship. Christianity, it seems, is in at lease some sense, an attempt to extend this relationship past family and friends to the whole species. I suppose that we should also explore the possibility of multiple definitions of love for the many different kinds.)

I would also like to say that my entry "The world's biggest LIE" was intended mostly for humor, and does not accurately portray my thoughts and/or feelings on the subject (at least not at the current time). (Although I quite agree with the bit about how love is a disposition, an unconditional acceptance.)

Chemical reactions not to be taken lightly!

Post 10

This Too Shall Pass

More clarification is needed.

Here, in easy to read point-form, is what I meant:

- Family and/or community are based on some form of love
- Language could not arise without one or both of family and community. (This is true at least for the way in which language appears to have developed for humans).
- Rational thought could not develope without language.
- Civilisation could not develope without rational thought.
- Therefore... Civilisation could not have come about without love.

- Love is something we share with animals, language is what seperates us.
- Love is a good thing. A great thing.
- The love preached by pop culture can only ever lead to happiness in the case that two people love each other and share the same idea of what love is and/or should be. THIS ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS!!! (I know that it does sometimes. It seems that it happened for my parents, but cases like theirs are getting quite rare these days.) That (according to me, with no evidence) is why we see so many divorces and whatnot happening. People are not willing to change their ideas of love.
- Love (as I tell it) is caring for another person and accepting them as they are without need for improvement. It is unconditional. It is not jealous or greedy or needy. All of this is stuff that we need to work through on our own. I don't know how this relates to my ideas of the evolution of love.

Please note that although I stated all of this as if I believed it were fact, that is mostly for convenience. All (nearly, at least) of these ideas are open to interpretation and revision, or even complete rejection. This post was simply to clarify, to attempt to ensure that what I *really* (whatever that means) meant. The worst kind of argument is the one in which what is being argued cannot be agreed on.

Chemical reactions not to be taken lightly!

Post 11

the third man(temporary armistice)n strike)

On a more philosophical note. Sartre stated that the main purpose of life is to maximize freedom and love is a way of capturing somebody else's. On reflection there is something to it.

Chemical reactions not to be taken lightly!

Post 12


Interesting. We should, however, take into account that love also usually involves sacrificing some of your own freedom, which makes things a little more complicated.

I've been searching for an accurate definition for love for a long time.

So far I have found one that in my humble opinion is pretty close to love (as I feel it). I don't remember its author, but he claims that "love is a state in which it is impossible to be happy unless your partner is happy as well".

That's what I think love is -- wanting to make someone very happy. Someone who deserves to be very happy. Someone who can return the favor. The criteria by which that someone is actually chosen are very individual.

I still can't see the reason behind love. Is it just reproduction? I don't think so -- there must be more to it. Is it just a mechanism for bringing people together, thus creating a more united society? I don't know. Is it just a big hairy lie? Nah, it's not just some imaginary thing we see on TV, it's something that is actually encoded in our instincts.

That implies that love is a "feature" that we have evolved, so somehow it must be helping us to survive. How exactly, I can't tell. One thing is for sure: it feels smiley - bleeping good.

Chemical reactions not to be taken lightly!

Post 13


a cute passage i read somewhere was that love isn't starring into each others eyes, but looking outward together in the same direction. This seems like perhaps not the central being of love, but a very important part, that you are both individuall enough to know what want to do but your paths run together.

Chemical reactions not to be taken lightly!

Post 14


a cute passage i read somewhere was that love isn't starring into each others eyes, but looking outward together in the same direction. This seems like perhaps not the central being of love, but a very important part, that you are both individuall enough to know what want to do but your paths run consistantly together.


Post 15


As the H2G2 would say there isnt much to say on the subject of love (except to avoid it at all costs) however then another problem arises. Say what humans have dubbed "love" is a fundamental feature for a fullfilling and generally happy life. If one half of the people do not believe in love and the other half have the concept of love completely wrong how is anyone going to benefit? Questions from a teenagers mind...


Post 16

riverrunning (in the opposite direction)

I think I read somewhere that love can be classifided as a mental illness. This may be true but that means many many people are mentally ill (this isn't so alarming, should you happen to live in southern California like me, but...still alarming).

Love can be classifided as biological, but it also is psychological. Humans obviously want to reproduce, and, as it's been stated, analize people of the opposite sex as parents of their children. However, this can be changed by the psychological makeup of the person in question (i.e. their personality). This is how sexual preferance and the different ideas on who's "hot" came to exist. People of personality type ____ will be attracted to people of type ____ because they value ____. That's the problem with sentience (sp?).

Because there are hundreds of different personalities (actually thousands), finding the perfect person is very very hard. Hence falling in love with them (and subsequenly nursing a broken heart if it doesn't end wellsmiley - wah).

On a personal note, being in love is like being on LSD. You don't really know what's going on except there's something wonderful and you don't want it to stop.


Post 17


Let's put the whole thing into an unsentimental nutshell with the following definition.

The love of one person(A) for another person (B) is in direct proportion to the degree of pleasure generated in some or all of the 5 senses of A by the appearance and/or behaviour of B.

The whole gamut of human emotions can be illustrated thus:

Ecstasy > Love
Pleasure > Liking
Pain > Dislike
Agony > Hate

Love @ my view!!!

Post 18


Hmmm lots of view here of love.... biological, scientific, philosophy ohhhh....

I would say Love is a natural phenomenon!!!!.... why not. Well we have been living with our parents to say around 18 years. We would have done things according to their point of view ( Studying, playing & all other stuff) and when we meet a opposite sex... for the first time in life...u will do things on ur own which attracts the opposite sex, quite surprisingly... Love@ first sight is the starting foundation of all love(Attraction I would say!!).

I would say the effort put forward from here by each individual makes the differences. Since we all are unique in a way or other. It depends on how you take this small attraction into a relation with more understanding, caring, loving relationship.

Often people wont have patience to sustain and heal a broken relationship and they would simple find a scapegoat saying," well, it is a infatuation". But I would say it is an opportunity, that you missed to nail.

So is my view of love!!!

Key: Complain about this post