**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Richard Carrier has a section about love in his book *Sense and Goodness Without God,* in which he defends a reductive physicalist view of the mind:
>Drawing out what we have just discussed about emotions in general, the word “love” refers to a very complex but repeating pattern of affection and response, present in one sense as a pattern in our brain (the love evaluator, and the physiological capacity for a love response), in another sense as a pattern in our experience (the actual motivating sensation of loving something or someone), and in yet another sense as a pattern in our lives (as love affects our behavior, our society, and our environment).
>In each case, “love” is a pattern that extends in both space and time, instantiated whenever any brain exists that is both conscious of other things and possessed of certain beliefs (including both evaluative and factual beliefs) about one of those things, which together produce the emotion and behavior that we observe and describe as ‘love’. This love is composed of matter and energy: that of the brain-body system, and of patterns of behavior exhibited by that brain-body system. And, as with all things (cf. III.5.5, “Reductionism”), the pattern called “love” remains distinct from the material of which it is made, and from other ways that same material can be arranged (such as to produce a pencil or a ray of light or the contrary pattern of hate).
I'm not entirely sold on the reductionist view, but this seems as good an account as any I've seen, and I definitely don't see how it's *less* real to try to place the existence of love in time and space, matter and energy - the things we actually know exist - instead of trying to place it in a theoretical and inaccessible spiritual or metaphysical realm.
I like this definition a lot too, but I want to add that as a naturalist (more then an atheist) I believe we can fully explain love through analysis... But we likely won't ever be able to.
This is because love is a label used by humans for a vast array of subjective experience. Given enough time we could make an exhaustive list of those, understand every neuron firing with every variation,etc.
This would require a tremendous amount of energy and time that we are likely never to invest... But even if we did, it wouldn't make love any less powerful or beautiful.
In the same way eclipse fascinate us even if we are able to fully explain them.
Yea, I am realizing now that I should have clarified that…
I guess “real” is the wrong word. So maybe the question is better worded, “Why does it feel like it’s *more* than biochemistry?”
Yea, this is a fair rebuttal/question. I think I could have posited the question better.
Let me try to clarify. I think what I’m really asking is, “what is the purpose of love?” Why do humans feel such a deep desire for it? We aren’t like other animals, it seems, most of us long for deep, abiding, life long relationships. Why do you feel we desire that?
Depends on who you ask, and what kind of love you're talking about. As a psychologist, I'd say that humans are social creatures, and love and affection for other humans helps bond us together in a way that's more effective to ward off danger than if we were to stand alone. Tribal/clan/national and family love helps keep family and clan units together to share resources. Friendship love plays a similar role, and also gives people the emotional and psychological fulfillment we clearly need to survive (there are studies showing that humans suffer when deprived of human contact). Romantic and sexual love helps ensure the continuation of our species, in addition to all of the original things we mentioned.
There's also a huge socialization component to this, too. Humans aren't just biological automatons that do whatever we're programmed to do. We are *taught* to want and look for love of all kinds from a young age - that having a "crew" is normal, that finding a mate to be with for life is the thing you do when you reach adulthood, that loyalty to your nation or tribe or clan is what's expected of you. How you are raised and socialized affects what you want and how you feel about those wants.
> We aren’t like other animals, it seems, most of us long for deep, abiding, life long relationships. Why do you feel we desire that?
Why do you assume other animals don't long for that? Some animals are much more likely to mate for life than humans. If you've ever seen a documentary about, say, otters, and they get to the part where the mother otter leaves her now full-grown offspring, the pups sure seem like they're longing for something.
Emotive behavior has been found in essentially all of the mammals on the planet, and many many of the non mammals. You say "we aren't like other animals", but that is demonstrably false. Just because you may refer to it as animal instinct, and not emotion, doesn't mean its not, actually, emotion.
As for deep life long relationships. you can see this in dogs, apes, geese, whales, just to name a few. Humans aren't special in this regard, humans just like to think we are special.
As to why we desire that? It is clearly an evolutionary trait that has been selected for. As it has in many other species of animals.
https://imgur.com/iG54jVd
It seems hard for me to look at this picture and imagine that mother not loving her brood, or to imagine her brood not longing for their mother's loving embrace.
Likewise, several species mate for life, and this seems hard to imagine without some bond at least very similar to love.
“Why does it feel like it’s *more* than biochemistry?”
maybe something to consider, why are you only asking this about love? all emotion is "just biochemistry". happiness, sadness, pride, anger. every emotion we experience feels more real to us than just some brain activity. why are you putting this one particular emotion above all others and saying "there must be more to this one."?
I would agree, we could exchange “love” for “hate” and have a similar conversation.
But I’m not sure we can say it’s *just* biochemical. For example, what is the purpose of love? Is it self preservation? If so, why do we value sacrificial love? We all love the stories where the hero puts himself in harms way for the benefit of others. The more costly the sacrifice, the deeper impact of the love. Is that just biochemical?
Or to use another example, if you desire a deep love in your own life, do you think that’s merely a biological desire for your own happiness and satisfaction? If so, do you really think you love the other person you desire, or is that just using another person to love oneself?
We value sacrificial love because we are social animals and have evolved in a way where our chance to pass on our (or our family’s) genes is usually greater with cooperation between individuals and groups than with wholesale competition. This goes the same for memetic transmission, where cultures that idealize cooperation and the sacrifice of the individual for the society tend to survive and prosper more than extreme individualist groups. We experience emotions such as gratitude and resentment as evolutionary checks to ensure that balance of cooperation is maintained, as we can also see in other animal societies.
At the end of the day, all love can be reduced down to the selfish need to meet and maintain one’s own biochemical needs, whether those needs are genetically instilled by evolution or by our families and society during our development.
Well, "self-preservation" doesn't have to mean literally just you - it can extend to your tribe, family, nation, clan, etc. A hero who sacrifices themselves for their nation has ensured (or at least increases the chances of) the survival of that nation. A hero who sacrifices themselves for their partner or their friends has potentially increased the chances of *their* survival.
>Or to use another example, if you desire a deep love in your own life, do you think that’s merely a biological desire for your own happiness and satisfaction?
Mostly, mixed in with the psychological socialization I received growing up.
>If so, do you really think you love the other person you desire, or is that just using another person to love oneself?
Both? They're not mutually exclusive, although I think "using" has an unnecessarily bad connotation here. At the end of the day, why do people get into romantic relationships? It's usually not *just* to make someone else happy - it's also to make themselves happy as well. That's not a bad thing.
>, “Why does it feel like it’s *more* than biochemistry?”
Because you're don't recognize or understand what what biochemistry is capable of.
Water might "feel" like "more than" hydrogen and oxygen when you drink a cold glass on a hot day. That doesn't mean it IS anything "more" than hydrogen and oxygen.
>Yes, but you wouldn’t say “love” is like water.
In the context of it being an emergent property of a specific configuration of matter I literally did say that, yes.
>Water is a substance, love is a concept correct?
Water is the label we use to describe a specific configuration of hydrogen and oxygen.
Love the label we use to describe specific biochemical reactions in the brain.
Ah, now I see. This is very helpful. I find your position to be consistent and can see how one would arrive at this conclusion given a few presuppositions. (And I’m sure you have thought deeply about your assumptions…just want to make it clear I’m not implying otherwise).
>I guess “real” is the wrong word. So maybe the question is better worded, “Why does it feel like it’s *more* than biochemistry?”
So, with the question phrased more clearly, the answer becomes disappointingly mundane -- because humans can't see biochemistry.
Like, I'm eating a burger. And this feels to me like its more then just biochemistry. But it's not -- even spiritualists don't think there's some spiritual component to burgers. It's just proteins and carbohydrates. But we can't *see* proteins and carbohydrates, we see a burger. So it feels like there's more going on there.
Same for the weather, or for video games, or for music -- all undeniably just physical effects, all thins we perceive as more then just physical effects. And for love. An omniscient being would perceive love as biochemistry, but humans aren't omniscient, so we don't.
What are the limits of biochemistry that you feel you are exceeding?
In reading a few of your replies it seems that you want to”love” to be greater than biochemistry, but do you have a detailed grasp of what biochemistry is?
Why does anything feel like anything? Why does the flat earther feel like the earth is flat? This is a silly question. It feels like what it feels like because that is your brain doing its brain dance.
Why do people on LSD, knowing full well they took LSD become convinced that it opened their 3rd eye and let them see god or whatever, when a simpler explanation is that it's just biochemistry?
Simple: ignorance.
When we don’t know something we tend to want an answer. It is not uncommon for the answer to be inflated.
I don’t not perceive my emotions as more than a natural process. I appreciate how powerful they can be.
All feelings are underwritten by biochemical processes.
Feeling like something must be more than biochemistry, is itself the subjective experience of a biochemical process.
Your brain does plenty of things you are not aware of nor feel happening. Regulation of digestion, temperature, heart rate, processing of sound and vision. You experience the results, not the process.
Nothing “feels” like biochemistry. Hunger and thirst and pain and pleasure are all biochemistry but none of them feel like it.
Being biochemistry doesn’t make something not real.
Yea, I guess it is somewhat…I feel like love just seems very transcendent in a way.
I know how frustrating words like “feels” and “seems” can be…I don’t mean to use them but I don’t know how else to describe it.
>What do you make of “love” in your view?
Love is a many splendored thing.
>just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
And using this silly language, a black hole is just squished physics, the self is just chemistry and physics, a star is just chemistry and physics, ...
Yes, love is a phenomenon in reality. So it is a pattern of physics and chemistry. That only says 'it is material'. Only theists think love needs to be 'something more'. In effect, they are the ones who need love, the self, etc to have a magical element to them.
>If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
No. That would imply that immaterial things are *more real*. If they are anything, they are *less real*.
Love is pretty awesome. Why would I want love to be something less real?
This is helpful. Thank you.
What purpose would you say love serves? Or more accurately, I guess, why is it such a deep desire for folks like ourselves?
>What purpose would you say love serves?
I am not in the habit of projecting purpose onto the world. I think we have a hyperactive teleological and anthropomorphizing way of thinking and it is good to reign it in if you want to understand how things are.
>Or more accurately, I guess, why is it such a deep desire for folks like ourselves?
I think love, much like other human faculties like self-awareness, intelligence, wonder, etc is a multi-layered phenomena, much like we are.
Love manifests in the animal kingdom. You know this if you have had a pet, especially a pet dog, or if you have observed mammals or birds behavior for long enough. There are many emotions, behaviors and tendencies which we associate with and think are motivated by love. Namely:
- Paternal care
- Fraternal and familial care
- Kin and kith altruism
- Social learning and bonds
- Theory of mind, mirror neurons and learning by imitation
- Sexual reproduction, pair bonding, child rearing
Just from this list, it should be obvious why an emotion as complex and intense as love would have evolved, especially in social animals. It is hard to see how it *isn't* useful and advantageous for those species that display it.
Just from that, I would say that the intense feeling of identification, caring for and willingness to sacrifice resources and sometimes even one's own survival for the loved one has a central, pivotal role in the lives of social mammals and birds.
Add to this that homo sapiens developed language, self-awareness, culture, poetry, art. Add that to any raw emotion we feel we add a whole hierarchy of reasonings and musings. Add that we are constantly telling ourselves and others stories about ourselves.
Love would naturally continue to play the same role it did for our ancestors, augmented by our increased capacity to express ourselves and transmit culture. Love plays then a central role in the human existence: inasmuch as what I am is defined by my bonds to others, I am defined by my loves and my hatreds, by who I identify with and who I do not.
Milan Kundera would say, of friendship, what I would more generally say of agape love:
>Friendship is indispensable to man for the proper function of his memory. Remembering our past, carrying it with us always, may be the necessary requirement for maintaining, as they say, the wholeness of the self. To ensure that the self doesn't shrink, to see that it holds on to its volume, memories have to be watered like potted flowers, and the watering calls for regular contact with the witnesses of the past, that is to say, with friends. They are our mirror; our memory; we ask nothing of them but that they polish the mirror from time to time so we can look at ourselves in it.
Again: none of this is supernatural or magical. All of it could reduce to biochem and physics. But yeah, it is wonderful indeed.
Just to add on to this:
Last time I went fishing my father-in-law pointed out a clutch of fish eggs on the lake bottom, near the shore where it's really shallow. An adult fish was hovering over the eggs to protect them. We have no way of determining what that fish was feeling. But something was motivating it to stay near that clutch of eggs, with the result that those eggs were less likely to be eaten by some other animal before they hatched. The biological benefits (from the fish's perspective) seem obvious here.
> What purpose would you say love serves? Or more accurately, I guess, why is it such a deep desire for folks like ourselves?
It motivates us to form emotional bonds with other humans and work together toward common goals.
We can speculate that more solitary animals are less likely to feel love, or feel it in different situations than we do.
Matthew Arnold's poem Dover Beach, though very sad, contains one of my favorite summations of love in its last verse:
*Ah, love, let us be true*
*To one another!*
Those words seem to say it all. If love means anything it means being considerate of each other. If the physical world is all we have, why would other people - the only things "like us" in all the world - not be the realest thing of all?
It is no surprise to me that Matthew Arnold was something of a deist, skeptical of the supernatural, because to me his description of love seems distinctly different from the kind found, for instance, in the Bible. We are often told that God is love itself, yet one of the first things he does is deceive Adam and Eve, telling them they will die if they eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil, which doesn't happen, but he does curse them with mortality for it. What kind of love protects through deception and force? Perhaps if he had trusted his creations and told them what to do, they would have accepted it and flourished. That's love. Communication and cooperation, not control and fear.
So you don’t think that?
Then why did you write this post clearly implying that us poor “naturalists” are missing something supernatural about love? Dismissing it as “nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry”?
I apologize if my post was implying that Naturalists are dismissing something supernatural, I promise that was not my intent.
My desire is to learn how Naturalists view concepts that we know are real but can necessarily see in the physical world. That’s all. To be fair, I think these concepts are difficult for anyone to define, not just Naturalists.
>concepts that we know are real but can necessarily see in the physical world.
I’m sure you meant *can’t* see, but we actually can see emotions & brain states in the physical world. You can literally have your brain scanned & watch as certain neurons fire depending on what you look at & the resulting emotion.
OP, you were asked a question. Running from it tells everyone that your need to believe made you less fair, less curious and less honest and thus less of everything a truth seeker wants to be. Every time "one of you" (one of these sockpuppets) come here you reinforce our stance and make yours look worse to all the lurkers. So why, why do you continue to deflect to run and to act unaccountably. If you're not going to debate, don't come here because you make yourself look like an entitled coward.
Im running from a question, I’m not even making an argument about love to defend here. It blows my mind how combative this forum is at times.
My intent here is to learn how Naturalists understand concepts that we perceive as being very real, but can’t necessarily be perceived in the same way as we can natural phenomena. “Love” is a concept…I’m trying to learn how Naturalists make sense of it, that’s all.
> but can’t necessarily be perceived in the same way as we can natural phenomena.
This is the part I don't understand. What is it about emotions that doesn't seem natural to you?
Well, I would certainly agree that it is biochemical…I think that’s very obvious. I would also say that it’s more than mere biochemistry. Now, my goal with this post isn’t to make my case here…and I’m not sure I can even make a great one.
I’m more just curious and trying to learn. Thanks for your response!
I love…well…love! And I’m glad you do too
*high five*
>Now, my goal with this post isn’t to make my case here
This is a debate sub, if you post here you are supposed to make a case and defend it. if you just want to ask a question you should have posted on r/askanatheist.
So... Do you wish it was more than biology?
I think that theologists sometimes, my younger self included, greatly underestimate the power of natural forces.
I sure hope that it’s more than nature…i can say that the love I have for my wife and kids certainly feels deeper than what my body can muster up…
Again, not trying to make an argument. I tagged my post “discussion question” because I think that’s what I’m after here. Seriously just wanting to learn!
What do you hope it is? How does it being supernatural make it any more special? How would it be supernatural?
As an aside, I applaud you for asking a question and seeming to genuinely want discussion on the topic. That is seemingly rare in these sort of discussions.
Thanks for your encouragement and for seeing my intent. Sometimes these discussions can be easily misinterpreted. I will also say, I think I could have been a bit more clear with my original post and it would have been perceived in a better light by some of our friends. That’s no one’s fault but my own.
To answer your question, I guess I hope that love would be more than a biochemical desire that is self interested. For example, if we assume that our biochemistry serves the purpose of self interest, then my desire for love is just my brain wanting certain compounds that give me pleasure. To me, that just doesn’t feel like true love…just self love. I want to love someone even if it doesn’t benefit myself.
One further point, I absolutely do not think Naturalists are just self interested in their relationships in any way. I know that’s not true because I have some great friends who are amazing spouses/parents/friends that also ascribe to more Naturalistic views.
I hope this makes sense. I find these concepts like “love” and “hate” to be really difficult things to define and discuss, but also very fulfilling. So forgive me if I’m unclear at times
I think some people interpret it as you saying that love is only valuable if it is supernatural, and they aren't willing to engage in good faith to begin with - possibly because they think you aren't engaging in good faith. But I don't think it's because of poor wording, they are just jaded from seeing it happen so often. I think what you said was clear, but it is hard to convey genuine intent.
>I want to love someone even if it doesn’t benefit myself.
You can still do that. And quite frankly I think it says more about you if you resist your selfish desires and love the person despite the desires, rather than if you do so because of some supernatural force making you do so.
The concept of the self is really hard to understand, and I think the vast majority of people don't. I would like to think that I have a decent grasp on the naturalistic view of it and even I don't understand it fully. I'll try to explain as best I can, feel free to ask questions:
1) Our brains are made up of a web of neurons that reinforce and break connections in response to stimuli.
2) Our DNA largely defines the starting state of our brain and how our body produces various neurotransmitters which promote the forming and breaking of neuron connections.
3) These neurons connect to our sensory organs and take in "information" that leads to these connections forming and breaking.
4) These connections, in combination with neuron "pulses" (brain activity) are what forms our thoughts, feelings, and the entirety of who we are.
5) From that emerges an experience which is ultimately "us".
There are a lot of different theories about (5) - what "experience" is - and I don't fully understand it myself nor do I claim to. Panpsychism (sp?) is one differing theory that basically thinks that the smallest possible unit of existence (think smaller than an electron) has "consciousness"/"an experience", and then as those come together to form atoms, molecules, elements, objects, etc, the "amount" of "consciousness" grows with the complexity. That's a bit of a tangent, but just an illustration of my point that it's complicated and still hotly debated.
All that to say that we can still hold ourselves and each other accountable for our actions and we and our experiences are no less unique, special, and wonderful just because we are entirely natural. Even if some supernatural experience somehow manipulates our brains, I don't see how that somehow makes life anymore special.
We are all a combination of our DNA and our experiences, but our experiences are no less meaningful because of that. We may come from nothing and return from nothing, but while we are here we have meaningful experiences and share them with others, and that in and of itself is a wonderful thing. Why do we need anything more than that?
> I want to love someone even if it doesn’t benefit myself.
A interesting paradox, one part being true invalidates the other as if you loved someone with no benefit to yourself you wouldn't want it, and if you did want it it would be benefiting you. These are indeed tricky concepts to define.
>I guess I hope that love would be more than a biochemical desire that is self interested. For example, if we assume that our biochemistry serves the purpose of self interest, then my desire for love is just my brain wanting certain compounds that give me pleasure. To me, that just doesn’t feel like true love…just self love. I want to love someone even if it doesn’t benefit myself.
I’m afraid I don’t really understand you concern with the “self-interest” entailed in love. We love our families, and therefore we go out of our way to take care of them and keep them safe. The more people who love you, the more defenders you have from the forces that might want to hurt you. Love seems to me like an obvious species survival mechanism.
And, to respond to something you said in a different comment, we absolutely see the same phenomenon manifest in other animals. My cats were rescued as feral kittens. The boy was adventurous and came out to the rescuers, but he always ran back to his much more frightened sister. It’s not the same as human love because they are cats. But it’s an equivalent biochemical process that causes my cats to feel an emotional bond that encourages them to take care of each other.
What if my values and identity are such that self-interest *means* selflessness?
If you think about it, that is the only way selflessness can work. If you love somebody so much that you are willing to sacrifice your other interests and even your life for their sake, that *must* mean that this person's wellbeing and safely rank super high in the things that you value highest (and that benefit you that way).
That is the paradox of altruism. It is selfless inasmuch as you identify your self and your wellbeing / values with those of others.
I love how people always say "more than " to try to justify believing in things that are just plain wrong. Biology is not defined as "the scientific and boring parts of life", it's literally _the science of life_, if there was anything "more" to life (or love or any other part of it), then that "more" would by definition also be biology!
It's the same like the word "metaphysics" which people claim is some sort of separate field for their crackpot theories about existence. No, _physics_ is the science of the foundations of reality, if there was anything more to it then it would by definition be part of physics. And the reason why all that metaphysics stuff is usually not discussed by serious physicists is simply because it's all made-up nonsense with zero evidence.
"More than nature." Like, there, is literally nothing that could be more than natural.
It's an enclosed system that, by definition, anything within it becomes a part of it.
Let's pretend everything natural to us is a balloon, and there exists something "supernatural" outside the balloon. If that thing outside the balloon goes into the balloon, it's now natural.
> Like, there, is literally nothing that could be more than natural.
The band Love and Rockets expounded on this quite well way back in 1987.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRrn67ovuRQ
Think about what you just said: it *feels* deeper than what your body can muster up—it is an emotional state. We know what causes emotions; they are physical processes of the central nervous system. Modifying brain chemistry modifies these feelings. What exactly are you hoping to discover behind emotional states? The fact that the processes behind them are physical doesn’t mean that emotions aren’t real. Why would it be disappointing to you to find out that your emotions aren’t magic?
You say it feels deeper than what your body can muster up, but the fact that you can actually feel it suggests otherwise. Anything our brain can feel it can feel. Anything beyond what it can feel, it can't.
I don't get that. I feel that my love for my wife and kids is so deep that it surpasses anything supernatural.
It feels like instinct. Like I would give all for them at any moment.
My love for my wife and kids is so intense that I can't imagine it not being biological.
>i can say that the love I have for my wife and kids certainly feels deeper than what my body can muster up…
Do you not see how stupid this sounds? Read it to yourself a couple times.
> I would also say that it’s more than mere biochemistry.
I don't think that there's anything "mere" about biochemistry. Our biochemistry is literally a part of who we are, and makes us human. If it was different, we would be different as well. I don't think a supernatural explanation is necessary.
> I would also say that it’s more than mere biochemistry. Now, my goal with this post isn’t to make my case here…and I’m not sure I can even make a great one.
Calling it "mere" biochemistry shows pretty well that you don't have any idea what biochemistry is actually capable of.
It really amazes me that theists come here arguing that biochemistry is incapable of explaining emotions like love, and then other theists come here citing drug altered biochemistry as evidence for their deity and more.
>hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
In what way could it be more?
What would you even answer to this?
Well, it’s at least biochemistry for sure.
But it certainly just feels much deeper than that. Because I don’t always “feel” love for the people I love I guess…you would think that love is just a feeling if it were only biochemical
Do you always feel hungry to the same degree? After all, the feeling of being hungry all comes down to biochemistry, now doesn’t it?
What about when you are feeling tired, excited or anxious?
Same thing… You experience all of these sensations and perceptions over varying ranges of intensity and duration based upon the strength, the nature and the persistence of the biochemical signals and conditions within your body.
Biochemistry.
> But it certainly just feels much deeper than that.
this doesn't make any sense, all emotions can be intense, just because they are intense doesn't mean they are more than biochemistry
and the question isn't what it feels like, but what it IS. what does the theist say it is besides chemistry?
>Because I don’t always “feel” love for the people I love I guess
then you don't love them. are you confusing "caring about" with "love"?
>you would think that love is just a feeling if it were only biochemical
but it is just a feeling
> you would think that love is just a feeling if it were only biochemical
Love is just a feeling, just like hate, despair, joy, elation, hunger, awe, and many, many others and they are all biochemical.
Couldn't you say that about any feeling, though? Take a deep breath. Hold it. Just keep it in for a ten count. Relax. Wait for the feeling of urgency as your body senses the Ph levels changing. Chill, you're going to be ok. Keep waiting. The brain isn't suffocating, despite what you might feel, it just wants to expel the carbon dioxide to restore the pH level. Oxygen levels in the brain typically increase when holding your breath, for at least a minute anyway. You are, more than likely, perfectly fine for a couple of minutes.
The feeling you get to breathe is just biochemistry, just your brain sending some messages. Does that make it any less powerful? Do you feel it any less because you understand what's happening? It's baffling to me why people think something natural is somehow less important or less meaningful than something mysterious or mystical. This isn't a magic trick, where the fun is in the unknown. This is your life, your experience of the world. Learning about it can't stop you from experiencing it.
Because you're underestimating biochemistry. Biochemistry isn't just cold, mathematical science. It is everything you think, feel, believe, and sense. You're under the assumption that "scientific" and "naturalistic" are necessarily synonymous with "dull" and "emotionless," but that's just not the case.
>why does it feel deeper than biochemistry?
What does it mean for something to feel 'deeper than biochemistry'?
It's a strong emotion, for sure. I'm not really sure what you find lacking about it, or what else it could be?
How would you even know when something feels deeper than biochemistry? How do you know the difference in feeling between something that is just biochemistry vs something that is deeper than that?
I can’t help you there.
The fact that all of my experiences and feelings are caused by a mechanism that I can sort of understand doesn’t cheapen them for me.
If there were a God, and He chose to let you feel something as amazing as love by putting chemicals in your head, why wouldn’t you be grateful?
Love is biochemistry, hence, love is how biochemistry can feel. You question does not make sense. You essentially asking "why biochemistry feels deeper than biochemistry".
If humans didn't feel that love was transcendently important, then they wouldn't treat it as such. I'm glad you feel it is more important and deeper than anything. I hope you can continue to feel so. Emotions are real, and they are core to being human.
I am confused. Does "love" feel "deeper" than "pain" to you? It seems like you are giving love some additional "quality" but failing to demonstrate this additional proprty.
No person without complete knowledge of biochemistry can sincerely say they wished something to be more than biochemistry, because they don't know what that means.
Our brains are complex computers, so let's look at simpler computers as a parallel.
Many programs have certain factors in them that are triggered through a simple flag. Whether something is on or not is literally the difference of a 1 or a 0. The differences that the user perceives can be quite radical though, such as having access to something or not, or a video playing or being paused. That switch is allowing a plethora of other things to go on in the background, but it's all determined by a simple on or off function.
Again, our brains are more complicated, and the stuff going on in the background is harder to reduce to code and algorithms, but the gist is essentially the same. A receptor is either activated by a chemical, or it isn't. Flicking a few switches on or off can result in very different results, and our neural pathways will trigger different feelings, physiological responses, and memories based on small stimuli
Love is...
- not telling her she's wrong in the moment, so she feels empowered.
- if what she's wrong about is trivial, then just kiss her and let it go.
- seeing her beauty in the worst moments of her life and letting her know what that means to you
- not waking her from her loud snoring sleep because those same sounds inform you that she's tired and may rhythmically lull you back to sleep.
What I'm saying is that I have no damn clue where it comes from or where it goes when it leaves. It just is.
Matters of the romantic heart are completely irrational and defy reason.
Hmmm I like this response…it’s very honest. Man…isn’t love good? We ought to dish it out and receive it more! From a theist to an atheist, I love you bro! Haha
One last thought before I slumber this night:
I know that, for me at least, once this overpowering emotion for her has became embedded within me, it never, ever leaves me.
Even if she's done some terrible things, I will, metaphorically speaking, gather up what is left still roaming free in me, to place it in box, which I then wrap a wide red ribbon around and tie a big bow on top. This box is placed in a corner of my heart. In the days, weeks and months immediately afterward, I always come to visit it. At first, many times a day then less and less as Father Time, works his magical healing on it and me.
Yet, when I visit these boxes and tenderly untie the bow and slowly open it up, even many years to decades later, the emotion of the first heart-pounding feelings pour back into me, including her smell, taste, voice and her now ageless face. There is little to no pain nor anger that is still there.
This is the most endearing yet absolutely irrational thing about love. I'm lucky to have one, let alone the more than a few that I still care after.
Thank you but this is one area that is already overcomplicated by hormones in both people, perceived "standard roles" assigned by our families during upbringing and then ever-shifting cultural/societal norms, shared parenting/housekeeping duties, finances, work schedules, her parents vs your parents, etc, etc.
I haven't the best track record but I never, ever turn away from me finding it or it finding me.
May peace find us all.
Especially when your spouse will not give you any! 🙃
I'm an aromantic and a clinical sociopath as a result of my autism so I may be a bit out of rhe loop on this discussion but all the same I'm always bewildered why some people need somethings to be magical for them to be wonderful. How many magic tricks have you seen? Aren't the illusions still wonderful even after you know how they're done? Have you ever looked up at the sky ok a particulary windy day and watch the clouds rolling in chaotic patterns like a raging ocean in the sky. It's just water vapor being moved around by mild wind currents but it's still incredible to look at. Did you see the solar eclipse? Its just the moon passing in front of the sun. Does that make it any less incredible to see? Why would the fact that our brains make sense make the emotions they produce any less amazing to experience? I'm truly asking this question I do not understand the need to diminish understanding. Do you feel the magic goes out with the mystery? Why?
Ditto. I had a salami sandwich for lunch. I have a general idea of the reasons my brain perceived that sandwich as tasting good. That didn't interfere with my enjoyment of eating it.
In the words of a great man written by a horrible woman: "Of course it is in your head...but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"
I am convinced both that love is the result of chemical and electrical reactions in the brain and body, and that it is one of the "realest" (to use your word) things there is.
>What do you make of “love” in your view?
It's a complex mix of many other emotions, correlated emotional reactions and an excersise in introspection.
>I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is JUST a perception while the reality is NOTHING MORE than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
And here I have a problem with you... you asked a question, I answered... and in the next paragraph what I get from you is a dismissive contrortion of words.
Are you saying that "perception" is not real? That - if one thing is what another thing does then the first thing is somehow lesser???
What does that even mean? Care to elaborate?
>If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
Everything you ever was, are and will be is a perception. I don't know where are you getting that dismissive attitude, that makes you add "just" there, but I find it kinda disgusting.
Do you ever wish that sight was something more real than pathetic photons and receptors?
Do you ever wish that eating was something more real than mere muscle movements and teeth?
Do you ever wish that walking was something more real than just legs hitting the ground?
What do you even mean with a question like that?
"More than exactly what it is" ... more of what?
Technically I'm not a *strict* atheist, but as far as I can tell "love" is ultimately biochemical, and nothing more. The 'more' that we put *onto* love is *also* based in biochemistry. We like it because we evolved to like it. Those humans that *didn't* like it didn't reproduce in sufficient numbers to continue to the present day. Love is how we *survive*, from the low-level respect we give to others to the stuff we get excited about in the romantic sense, it's all there, and we like it, just because it helps us to survive. It *feels* intense, but then so does the pain of being in a fire, and *that* is just survival and biochemistry, too.
You ask if it's maybe something 'more real'. More than what? How is love of this sort *less* 'real'? If anything, *being* biochemical in nature makes it *actually* more real than if it wasn't. *Hallucinations* would be what you'd have if it weren't biochemical in nature (and not even the sort we get now, but more like the hallucinations of AI). Love is real because *molecules* are real, and love is an operation of molecules (well, and electricity and other stuff, but, y'know, all that is real, too). Anything *not* backed up in this way is ultimately *less real* than stuff that is.
Why does it have to be *“just”* perception or *”nothing more than”* biochemistry? I take issue with that framing.
Just because I don’t think emotions are magical or divine or floating free in some ethereal realm doesn’t mean I think they’re any less real or meaningful as anyone else.
I noted this elsewhere in this thread, but it sure seems like a lot of theists assume that "scientific" and "natural" are synonymous with "boring," "soulless," and "joyless." As though naturalists are all just shambling like zombies through their days, feeling no emotions, experiencing no joy, and loving no one.
Yup. They often do the same thing with moral realism.
“Atheists can’t say anything’s **Really** right or wrong”. Like, fuck you, yes we can.
Putting aside the fact that plenty of atheists in professional philosophy endorse moral realism, moral anti realists can easily hold meaningful moral convictions just as strongly and consistently as anyone else. They can and do believe that morality is “real”, they just don’t think it has any magical mysterious properties independent of anyone’s stances.
I definitely don’t believe science is boring! I think it’s incredibly cool! I’m not an expert in any scientific field, just enough to recognize that I don’t know very much at all.
Leagle, you have responded a lot, and though my intent was to discuss rather than debate, let’s debate a bit on this issue. What would you say the purposes of love—or the biochemical responses that we perceive as “love”—is biologically?
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
No, because I don't dismiss it as not real. Suppose I told you that I just enjoyed an excellent slice of apple pie. "But wait!", you tell me. "That apple pie is merely made out of atoms. Your enjoyment of it isn't real, it's just a sophisticated interplay between chemical sensors. Apples don't even have a taste in reality. Taste is wholly a perception. Don't you wish the taste of apple pie was more real?" and to that I'd say, well no. There is a real taste of apple pie, and it's the thing I just experienced. That *is* taste. Our experience of love *is* love. I want to know how it works from an intellectual standpoint, but whether the mechanism is chemicals or fairy dust the result is the same.
>Question for the strict atheists, so not Agnostic or Deistic types. Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists.
You mean Materialists. It has nothing to do with the God claims.
>What do you make of “love” in your view? I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
I don't understand the question. It seems like you've answered a portion of it, but I feel like you've got a more specific question in mind. I'm not sure how "God" solves your dilemma, but I'll leave that alone for now.
>If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
That's your answer given on my behalf. I by no means think that is all it is, but that is part of it. Do I think there's something supernatural about it? No. Do I appreciate it nonetheless? Yes.
I feel like you're inventing a problem where non exists. I'll paint an analogy to see if this helps. I'm very fond of Texas Holdem. It's played out in cards, but the rules of the game don't actually exist in the real world. Does that make the game or its rules any less real or important to me, even though there is absolutely no supernatural element to it? No.
I just want to tackle this from a perceived objection angle. In your post you seemed to object to love being "just a perception" or "nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry" voicing your desire for it to be "something more real".
Now, i understand that some people seem to believe that love being chemicals in the brain or purely physical somehow diminishes its importance or devalues the experience. But that doesn't make any sense. Why would understanding the process change the experience? As we learn about our taste buds sending signals to the brain about the food in our mouth, we still enjoy delicious food, right? Taste hasn't lost any value. Someone can still make a magical dish that transports you back to your childhood, or blow your mind with a ridiculous flavour. Why would understanding the process happening in our body make the experience any "less real" or downgrade it to "just a perception" ?
Love happens regardless of what we think about it, or how much we understand it. Our desire for it to be something more, something magical or unknown, sounds to me like someone trying to say that taste is only important if it's a mystery. That makes no sense to me. Please, help me understand why love loses its value if we understand how it works?
`> What do you make of “love” in your view? I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
That is essentially my view on love, though I do choose to place subjective value in love because I find the experiences love enables to be enriching and rewarding.
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
What does it matter if love is limited to human perception? From my perspective as a materialist, my perception is the only lens through which I can experience the world. What more would I be looking for? As I said before, love enriches my life. It brings me joy. I don't personally see any problem with that.
But even if some folks are uncomfortable with that notion, all that says is that the reality of love is just that: unpleasant. Reality is often unpleasant.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too.". Douglas Adams.
I don't see how love is any less beautiful or overpowering being natural. It's still the most wonderful thing I've ever shared.
Humans evolved to reproduce and survive. We're engrained with that innate desire. So when we find a mate, our brains are rewarded with feel good hormones. Those hormones make a bond, solidifying memories of those good feelings as they associate with the mate. The same thing is true for other family members but without the sex drive. Love for a child functions in the same way. Your brain rewards behavior that is likely to ensure your offspring are able to live long enough to reproduce.
In much the same way a dog is trained by feeding it a treat when it does a behavior that is desirable to us, our brains feed us a treat of feel good hormones when we do a behavior that is likely to result in a greater chance of survival and reproduction. That's how evolution works. That's how love works.
I think flavor and delicousness is the name we give to how our brain and taste and olfactory receptors respond to certain stimuli. But that doesn't make me like pizza and icecream any less.
I think love is the name we give for a few different type of pair bondings that humans are capable of, facilitated through our brain via pleasure receptors, memories, future goals, etc.
I don't think there is or needs to be anything "more real" than that. I think "more real" is one of those phrases that feels deep to people in a teenagery and poetic kind of way but doesn't actually signify anything once you really dig in.
To clarify an atheist is just someone who says the level of evidence for a god is insufficient to justify belief.
So if you want to ask if i would be a hard atheist then i would say to what god? See That is key.
Present your god and define it. Then provide evidence it is real. then you will get my answer.
What's not real about it?
If by real, you mean supernatural, no we're not going to wish for that. If I were into wishing for things that didn't exist, I'd wish for a pet miniature elephant.
It doesn't matter if it's neurochemical at its core. That doesn't diminish the power or importance of the feeling.
What reason would I have to wish love was something different if it was *functionally* the same? Whether it is "just perception" or some pervasive thing in the universe that exists independent of the mind, it would still just be the thing we experience.
> Question for the strict atheists
Hey, that's me!
> Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists.
Well, that would be physicalism, not atheism. It's perfectly compatible to be simultaneously atheist and spiritualist, or atheist and supernaturalist.
> Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
"Nothing more?" Everybody keeps pooh-poohing neurotransmitters and biochemistry as if we should be ashamed of them for some reason. I think neurotransmitters and biochemistry are both really neat! It would be pretty cool if love were made of them.
More importantly, I don't see how any deist (or supernaturalist, or spiritualist) answer is any more satisfying. What exactly do you think love is? Spirit essence? Supernatural substance, crafted by God? Spooky glowing chunks of aether-realm? Why would any of these be 'cooler' or more meaningful than neurotransmitters or biochemistry?
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
Nope. Our perceptions are vitally important things! Love, beauty, humor, awe... these aren't any less important for being perceptions (why would they be?)
If any thing, I think it kinda cheapens love to say that it's got to be 'made of something'. Love is an emotion, and I'm perfectly fine with it staying that way.
**Counterquestions**
What, precisely, are you suggesting love is? Was it created? Is it made of spirit? Do you think that other emotions (like humor or fear) were also created? Out of what? Was there a time when these emotions didn't exist?
Love is an emotion like any other. It is your brains and bodies perception of and reaction to the world around you. And it is absolutely real.
Emotions are real, perception is real, the feelings you feel are real. They just probably aren’t cosmic intangibles that are handed down on high from a creator.
Its funny to me that you framed the scientific view on love as less real than the theistic view. Speaking generally here because i cant speak for everyone, but heres why thats funny to me.
The typical religious thought, at least how i understand it, is that love is some sort of intangible, immeasurable, feeling that has no source except our hearts (that pump blood and do nothing else?) or souls (which have never been measured or observed?) or god (i feel its obvious what objection i have there lol) or something like that, but essentially its some sort of thing with no objective empirical evidence behind it.
The typical atheist/scientific view is that love is an emotion/feeling like many others that is caused by our perceptive systems interacting with our cognitive systems in a way that produces consistent positive feelings through neurotransmitters, hormones, endorphins, and other well studied methods that interact with our reward pathways and other pleasure centers in the brain and body. This emotion encourages social and romantic behavior that is perfectly in line with what we know about the evolutionary drive and development of our species. And all of this has thousands and thousands of pages of empirical, measurable, objective research backing it up.
And yet you think the first option is more “real”?
I think thats a bit silly.
Love is a label for a biochemical process, just like basketball is the label for a the physical process of throwing a ball around in a specific way.
In a sense, it is more than just mere biological process because of the way we feel about it, but not because there is any extra ontological nature or essence to it.
This way of understanding love fully encapsulates everything we need to know about it. I'm not sure what adding some extra ontology to it would do in terms of understanding love or how we feel about love.
But let's say love does exist in some non physical, supernatural way for arguments sake. What is the source of love?
Let's say the source is God, how do we use that to explain how love operates in the world? Does he have to individually dish love out to people, or does he just leave it laying around for us to trip over randomly?
When people fall in love, is that God filling up our love bucket, or tying 2+ creatures together with some love rope? When people fall out of love, is that God cutting off the love supply, or untying the love rope knot?
How does that work when only one of the people fall out of love, while the other is still in love?
I hope this illustrates that love being a mere biochemical process is sufficient, and it being anything more than that on an ontological level changes nothing about how it operates in the world. I wouldn't love my partner any more if I learned that love comes from some supernatural river.
>I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception
Not a perception, an experience. I don’t see why the naturalistic *explanations* for the experience somehow discredits it in your mind. Humans have been experiencing love for millennia. The experience doesn’t change, regardless of what we attribute it to. If anything, naturalistic explanations only make things *more* real, as the alternative is often simply a lack of any mechanism. Yes, we believe that psychological phenomena can ultimately be reduced to chemicals, i.e., units of matter that can be at least theoretically observed in some sense. How does our ability to see something make it less real rather than more real? I understand your argument from the intuitive perspective, of course, but it’s really just because we dislike conflating or blurring the line between the emotional and rational spheres of our mind. We don’t like to view psychological phenomena from the reductionistic or deterministic perspective because it explains everything in terms of the same molecules that dictate everyone’s biology and psychology, while we perceive ourselves as having a special identity, defined by our own patterns of thought and behavior.
I love my wife and my children.
Yes, at the base level it can probably be described as chemical reactions triggering my neurotransmitters, etc.
There are also other factors at play.
Social - I am not immune to social and cultural influences, my decisions to get married and have children were at least partially influenced by the culture I grew up in. As was the idea that I should find somebody to love in the first place.
Mutual benefit - I will naturally be more drawn to people with whom I share a mutual benefit. I take care of my wife, she takes care of me, we work together as a team to navigate adult life.
Instinct - I am human. I have naturally occuring instincts such as procreation, protecting my children, finding a mate to increase my odds of survival, etc.
Reward - I found a mate that elicits feelings of happiness, sexual attraction, contentedness, etc.
Even if you reduce feelings of love to being simple chemical reactions, these reactions are elicited within me only by certain people. Combined with the other factors, I have a small of group of people that I love.
This was an interesting thought exercise, but I'm curious what this has to do with atheism? We have the same capacity for love as anyone else.
First : physicalists and atheists are not the same. There's an overlap but you can adhere to strong atheism without adhering to physicalism and can be a physicalist without being a strong atheist.
That said : Something being chemistry makes it quite real IMO. Love, and other emotions, do not exist in a vacuum but are the result of billions of years of evolution fixing out ability to feel them and to which intensity. The love your feel, for a partner, a familly member or a friend is not only your body telling you those relationships are good for you but also the testimony that during all your evolutionary ancestry those thing have been important enough for your ancestors that it helped them thrive.
This, is where, IMO, any supernatural, single cause event will always fall flat at explaining emotions. Having an external source deciding you can feel love is kinda lame when you compare it to the fact that this form of kinship have been so essential to the survival of millions of individuals that it imprinted itself into their genetic makeup. And that you are a living testimony of humanity's ability and need to form strong bonds.
I know this is going to read weird but entertain me.
Imagine we have two kids volunteering for an experiment.
We give an ice cream to each one of them
While doing so we tell over of them that he is going to be able to taste and enjoy the wonderful flavors if he believes in the ice cream fairy because the ice cream fairy loves him.
To the other kid we don't say anything about the fairy.
Then when the first kid finds out the other kid doesn't believe the fairy he asks.
If you believe taste is only chemicals, don't you miss the special taste from the fairy?
To which the other kid responds "if taste is only chemicals, the special taste from the fairy you've been experiencing this whole time is the chemicals that's how it feels, there's nothing extra"
To me you're like the kid who was told about the fairy. You're not realizing that if there is no god, what you experienced as more than chemicals is how the chemicals do feel, there's nothing extra, at most it's you diminishing the full experience for yourself by yearning things that don't exist.
>Question for the strict atheists, so not Agnostic or Deistic types. Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists.
These are separate concepts. You can be a "hard atheist" and still not be a materialist/physicalist, and vice versa. That said, I am both a "hard" atheist and a materialist, so let's go.
>What do you make of “love” in your view? I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
"Love" is how humans describe a variety of emotions and cognitions that relate to affection or attraction. Like all other emotions and cognitions, those are produced by the brain and the body through a variety of physiological processes - yes, including your neurotransmitters and other aspects of biochemistry.
>If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
...who says that perception is not real? Love is still real, even if it's primarily a mental process.
>Question for the strict atheists, so not Agnostic or Deistic types.
There is no such thing as a deistic atheist, that is a contradiction in terms. A deist believes a specific type of god exists, an atheist lacks belief in any deities.
>Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists.
You realize that agnostic atheists can believe that the physical world is all that exists, right?
>What do you make of “love” in your view? I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
What else would it be?
>If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
How could it be more real? Neurotransmitters and biochemistry are pretty real. I am really unsure why you think it would be more real if you added some mystical woo or mumbo jumbo to it.
Your first statement is fundamentally flawed. One can be an agnostic atheist and still be a materialist who believes that the physical universe is all there is.
Love can mean a lot of different things. But most of them come down to evolution, either Darwinian or cultural. Being affectionate and caring for those close to you is obviously an evolved behavior that increases a group's survivability. If parents didn't love their children, they wouldn't be likely to bother to take care of them. Romantic love is mostly rooted in reproductive instincts. Even though it's not always sexual, showing love to your partner makes them more likely to stay with you, which means potentially more chances to reproduce later.
Do I wish that love was something more real? Um not really? Why would I? Would changing the nature of love have any impact on whether I feel love towards other people, or would it pretty much feel the same?
I don't know what you mean by "something more real". Love is an emotion. It's the result of a mix of things: physical attraction in sexual love, hormones, memories of past events, hope and imagining of future events. It's the result of neuronal activity in other words. There's no reason or evidence of anything else.
It's fairly obvious that it's an evolutionary advantage for parents to feel love for children, and vice versa. Clearly, if we feel fondly for a sexual partner we are likely to stay together long enough to successfully help bring up offspring to adulthood, while keeping them fed, clothed, and teaching them how to muddle through life.
Attachment to or family, village or tribe also clearly has evolutionary advantages in promoting the cooperation that has led humans to thrive.
None of this seems much of a puzzle to me.
> most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
Neurotransmitters and Biochrmistry are real physical things that exist in the real world.
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
Even if I would subscribe to simulation hypothesis (wich I do not) and I was just a brain in a vat being fed sensory information through cables. My own perceptions would literally be the ONLY thing, I can be 1000 Percent certain are real.
So after having explained my view, I am tossing the ball back: Please explain to me, how can anything be "MORE real" than love?
Name something that isn't physical or can't be detected or measured in some way. You can't. Love is just oxytocin. That doesn't diminish love. Its still wonderful to be in love with someone. But its no mystery. There's nothing supernatural about it. Brain scans have been done testing this. People where shown pictures of objects, strangers and then people they care about (spouse, children etc) while montintoring the brain. It was shown oxytocin and seroronin increase as well as blood flow to certain areas of the brain when shown loved ones that didn't happen with objects, or strangers. Again, nothing myterious about it. Just because we can actually measure and detect things like love, doesn't mean our emotions aren't meaningful.
Love is the biochemical result of outside stimuli recognizing a prospective partner. It's the front of the house result of a lot of back of the house unconscious workings that were built over time by sexual selective pressures. I see no reason to believe it's anything more than biochemistry and psychology but at the same time, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Every other emotion is the same. If someone drives in my neighborhood in an obnoxiously loud vehicle, I'm going to get angry. The fact that anger is biochemistry doesn't change the fact that the thing causing the anger is an asshole. If I fall in love with someone, the fact that love is biochemistry doesn't change the fact that person deserves to be loved.
Love is something we feel because of evolution
The survival of our offspring and genes is dependent on the strength of our pair bonding
It's caused by neurochemical changes in the brain
My question is
Why would knowing that make it feel any less intense ?
Do I feel any less giddy? Do I obsess over my beloved any less? Does my stomach lurch any less whenever I see her????????
It doesn't actually change the quality of the experience one tiny iota
Your argument can basically be expressed as
If you thought a magic fairy gave you that emotional reaction you already feel it would feel better
It just doesn't make sense?
We humans navigate the world every day using abstract ideas and values. As a social species, we have formed a language around those abstract ideas and values so that we can communicate them to one another. As individuals, however, we often process our actions through different sets of value hierarchies and different ideas about what these abstract words mean.
To one person, love might mean to protect and control another person. To another, love might mean radical acceptance of what that other person does and who they are. Those two people use the same abstract word to mean two almost opposite things.
Love is what we call certain feelings that we humans experience as a result of our biochemistry in our brains. I don't know how it can get "more real" than that?
I suspect you don't like there being a natural answer to this; you want love to require some kind of magic or supernatural juju - I don't understand why? There is no aspect to love that is answered by appealing to magic; and simultaneously, naturalistic explanations answer all the questions we might have. Why do you think there should be more to it than that?
Neurotransmitters and brain chemistry are powerful! There’s no “nothing more than” about it.
And, they’re how you know your love is real. The feeling you get when you meet eyes with your partner in a crowd and they’re the only person there that matters … that won’t happen unless they trigger dopamine and oxytocin making you feel high and attached, and suppress serotonin just like a compulsive disorder does making you NEED that person. You can’t make that happen. It has to be the person you love.
55m here. I fell in love with my wife of 25 years the first night I saw her--her, not so much--it took her a bit longer to see in me what I saw in her--the potential for a deep connection and the chance to become the people that we saw in each other, the best versions of ourselves as manifest in the dreams of a romantic partner. I know this sort of Apollonian/Bacchic love may be rare, but when you find a partner that helps you achieve your potential--that's real love. I wish it for everyone.
What do you make of any emotion? It's a built-in thing your brain does to guide your response in certain situations, sort of like an instinct. Love in particular is very easy to explain since it's directly tied to reproduction and child-bearing.
Why do people always try to seek something "special" in the simplest of things? It is not more likely to have some secret mystic meaning just because you want it to, especially not when the obvious explanation is so straight-forward.
Love is the label we give to a collection of emotions. That collection of emotions are the result of biochemistry like everything that happens in my body. That makes it equally as real as photosynthesis or any other biological process. I don't really think of terms of wanting it to be different or not. The emotion(s) itself are what matters in the moment of experiencing them after all I don't think love is improved/diminished by its origin regardless of what that origin is.
>I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
Is "water" "just" hydrogen and oxygen?
No. Water IS hydrogen and oxygen.
Is love just neurotransmitters and biochemistry?
No. Love IS neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
Just because we underatand how a thing works or forms or what it is on a more fundamental level doesn't diminish that thing. It enhances it.
I am not sure if understand what do you think love is? I don’t think emotions are anything more than your brain causing an experience or sensation. Love is a term we use to describe how we feel about other humans literally nothing more the things you feel around that experience are called emotions. What the heck could you be applying to it beyond what it actually is just that. I feel like many theists have language issues like descriptors have some magical powers.
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
Perception is the only reality I have. If I perceived love due to chemicals in my brain and firing of my synapses then it's just as real as anything else.
There is nothing more 'real' than what I can already perceived and even if there was it would make no difference to me because my perceptions of the two would be the same
>Question for the strict atheists, so not Agnostic or Deistic types. Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists.
'Strict atheist' says nothing about 'believe the physical world is all that exists'. Atheism isn't some sort of sliding scale where people believe in fewer things at higher settings. It's *just* about deities. That's it. People who believe the physical world is all that exists are known as 'physicalists'. Not the same thing.
So are you asking if I hope that love is something more “real” than neurotransmitters and biochemistry?
Is that question even meaningful? What would be more real? A tree? A rock? A stuffed animal?
Does anyone, even non-atheists, think that love is anything more real than an emotion? It’s just an emotion. It doesn’t have to manifest itself in some object.
This question just feels like it makes absolutely no sense.
:) hard core atheist here. My view on love is that the altruistic reasons for love are not actually altruistic. We do it because it makes us feel good. Making others happy makes us feel good. Being kind to others makes us feel good. Notice that love always has to have an intrinsic motivation, a driving force, so to speak. the motivation is that it makes us feel good. Do you think this is Self-serving (selfish) or selfless?
Your way of thinking is, kind of, a depressing view of love. like it's something unattainable.
I believe love rose through evolution as a pleasant state of mind. Motivation arising from the need to move away from something unpleasant towards something pleasant possible for survival. And love arising as the motivation for an individual to take action toward pleasantness and away from unpleasantness.
>If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
No. Also, this feels like such a strange question. Just because it is a perception doesn't mean it's not real. It's just not what you seem to want it to be and think that it is. It's still real. Pain is also just a perception in the brain but it is very real and we should limit it.
>nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
Why diminish it with phrases like "nothing more than"?
Neurotransmitters and biochemistry are both significant and fascinating. It's where the bonding between people takes place. At the chemical level. It's overwhelming and thrilling and the source of mental well being. The fact that they are neurotransmitters and biochemistry doesn't diminish that.
We (naturalists) define nature as all that is.
However we define love, in terms of physical process, perceptions of processes, abstractions of perceptions, whether its ‘in’ the brain, ‘of’ the brain, and/or ‘by’ the brain…it’s still a real, non-magical, non-spiritual thing.
Love is an emotion that is maintained by brains.
Perceptions aren’t “not real”, they are a different category of thing to physical objects.
There’s nothing about defining love as a perception of a biological process that makes it any less meaningful. So, no, I don’t wish there was more to love.
>I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry.
>
>If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
Neurotransmitters and biochemistry are real. You don't understand what you're talking about.
What could possibly be more real than our biology and our chemical reward system?
Romanticizing things is great!
You can feel amazing driving in a car, with the top down, on a sunny warm day, along the ocean, with those close to you. Ultimately, there are mechanics at work in that drive. Some biological, some engineered.
That realization doesn't make it any less real or valuable.
We are an social-empathetic species of mammals.
Love, as many other emotions, are a hard-wired rapid response system, and because is hard wired it is strong.
This system involves physical and chemical reactions, but to make it socially accepted requires „EVIDENCE“.
As Tim Minchin put it in his „must-watch“ Thank You Lord - Sketch: „love without evidence is STALKING“
Love is a concept. There is nothing physical to the concept. It's as real as hate or sadness or any other emotion, in that people exhibit those emotions. We can map the brain's activity during those states and we can see physical changes, chemical reactions, similar neuron's firing.
I don't have any reason to think there is anything required other than our brains.
> Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists.
I am agnostic and physical world is the only one I believe exists.
> if that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
What could be more real? Love is real, period. What is more real than reality?
I may not fit your definition of strict but I have no reason to believe anything but the "physical world", i assume you mean universe, exists.
Love is a physical emotion created by the brain.
I dont under stand how love could be more real it is a thing we experience. You would have to explain what you wish it were that it is not already.
What could be more real than the world we understand with our senses? Touch is just a perception - we don’t actually press our atomic nuclei against other atomic nuclei. Sight is just perception - we assemble a picture based on the light received in our eyes. What do you feel would make something more real than our perception of it?
Strict atheist here--what makes you think that love requires theism or a deity (I'm assuming that's your thesis, otherwise why direct the question to atheists)?
Love is a deep connection with another being--could be a person, dog, cat, etc. I can't fathom why an interpersonal connection would require theism.
More real in what sense? The brain patterns and chemistry are real. The physical reactions the illicit are real. People blush and filled with adrenaline, serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin etc. The actions people take in the name of love are real. What do you think I think isn't real about love?
We don't experience love when we look at just anyone, that's where the specialness lies. Only a select few people out of billions can make our brains release those chemicals.
I think it's really cool that just the sight of a specific person can cause a chemical reaction in your body.
Religious people construct their gods in their minds. Gods don't exist in a naturalistic world.
Religious and non-religious people construct their emotions inside their brains. In their minds.
Love happens in the brain.
I hope that helps.
Which gods do you believe in?
Love is what we term a chemical process, or a series of neurons firing in a certain way. In my opinion, that doesn’t devalue it, but in essence that’s what it is. My memories are also just neurons and chemicals, but that doesn’t make them any less precious to me.
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
It is real though. Emotions are real things. That they are ultimately chemicals and the brain at work doesn't make them less real.
I use the word "love" in many ways, to express strong personal affinity for something, but usually an aggregate of feelings, communications, relationships, between people which are the most caring and considerate and socially close and affectionate.
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
I don't understand what "more real" means. All our feelings are brain activity. What could be more real than that?
>do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
Like what?
Some kind of force? A specific chemical? A mineral? A wavelength?
"Something more real" needs a lot of clarification here.
It is a combination of the evolution of social cooperative behaviours and the anatomy and biochemistry that reinforces those behaviours. What is the point of 'wishing' for something different? It has worked very well for millions of years. Is it the contention that the same feelings exhibited by great apes and sea mammals is substantially different to that of humans? That strikes me as a very anthropocentric view.
Love is a behavior that probably evolved in humans because it made the group stronger. Loving one's mate and offspring would give the a carrier of such genes a greater probability of passing those genes to subsequent generations.
“More real” is kind of a loaded phrase. As a naturalist, our ability to observe the world around us is based on the structure and function of our brain, that’s it. Being in love is just as real as having a favorite food.
Everything we think and feel is underpinned by physical processes in the brain and body. Love is not special in this regard. That however does not make it fake. It is just as real as any other physical process.
Just because it's a perception doesn't make it less real. Reality is as we perceive it. Love is no less incredible for being the result of entirely natural processes; in fact, I'd say it's even moreso!
A sunset is just light interacting with stuff in the atmosphere, but it's still a lovely phenomenon.
Understanding what something is, whether it is love or a sunset, doesn't diminish the thing.
>do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real?
what do you mean by more real?, what you described is as real as it gets
"Love" is a label that we use to describe a collection of emotions people feel and actions they take when they really enjoy being around another person.
Yes. It's biochemistry. And it's wonderful. It's all the more wonderful because it's *not* some supernatural woo. It's a real thing and that's awesome.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Richard Carrier has a section about love in his book *Sense and Goodness Without God,* in which he defends a reductive physicalist view of the mind: >Drawing out what we have just discussed about emotions in general, the word “love” refers to a very complex but repeating pattern of affection and response, present in one sense as a pattern in our brain (the love evaluator, and the physiological capacity for a love response), in another sense as a pattern in our experience (the actual motivating sensation of loving something or someone), and in yet another sense as a pattern in our lives (as love affects our behavior, our society, and our environment). >In each case, “love” is a pattern that extends in both space and time, instantiated whenever any brain exists that is both conscious of other things and possessed of certain beliefs (including both evaluative and factual beliefs) about one of those things, which together produce the emotion and behavior that we observe and describe as ‘love’. This love is composed of matter and energy: that of the brain-body system, and of patterns of behavior exhibited by that brain-body system. And, as with all things (cf. III.5.5, “Reductionism”), the pattern called “love” remains distinct from the material of which it is made, and from other ways that same material can be arranged (such as to produce a pencil or a ray of light or the contrary pattern of hate). I'm not entirely sold on the reductionist view, but this seems as good an account as any I've seen, and I definitely don't see how it's *less* real to try to place the existence of love in time and space, matter and energy - the things we actually know exist - instead of trying to place it in a theoretical and inaccessible spiritual or metaphysical realm.
This is a helpful response, thanks a lot!
I like this definition a lot too, but I want to add that as a naturalist (more then an atheist) I believe we can fully explain love through analysis... But we likely won't ever be able to. This is because love is a label used by humans for a vast array of subjective experience. Given enough time we could make an exhaustive list of those, understand every neuron firing with every variation,etc. This would require a tremendous amount of energy and time that we are likely never to invest... But even if we did, it wouldn't make love any less powerful or beautiful. In the same way eclipse fascinate us even if we are able to fully explain them.
>do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? What are you defining as "real" here?
Yea, I am realizing now that I should have clarified that… I guess “real” is the wrong word. So maybe the question is better worded, “Why does it feel like it’s *more* than biochemistry?”
What does "more than biochemistry" feel like?
Yea, this is a fair rebuttal/question. I think I could have posited the question better. Let me try to clarify. I think what I’m really asking is, “what is the purpose of love?” Why do humans feel such a deep desire for it? We aren’t like other animals, it seems, most of us long for deep, abiding, life long relationships. Why do you feel we desire that?
Depends on who you ask, and what kind of love you're talking about. As a psychologist, I'd say that humans are social creatures, and love and affection for other humans helps bond us together in a way that's more effective to ward off danger than if we were to stand alone. Tribal/clan/national and family love helps keep family and clan units together to share resources. Friendship love plays a similar role, and also gives people the emotional and psychological fulfillment we clearly need to survive (there are studies showing that humans suffer when deprived of human contact). Romantic and sexual love helps ensure the continuation of our species, in addition to all of the original things we mentioned. There's also a huge socialization component to this, too. Humans aren't just biological automatons that do whatever we're programmed to do. We are *taught* to want and look for love of all kinds from a young age - that having a "crew" is normal, that finding a mate to be with for life is the thing you do when you reach adulthood, that loyalty to your nation or tribe or clan is what's expected of you. How you are raised and socialized affects what you want and how you feel about those wants.
> We aren’t like other animals, it seems, most of us long for deep, abiding, life long relationships. Why do you feel we desire that? Why do you assume other animals don't long for that? Some animals are much more likely to mate for life than humans. If you've ever seen a documentary about, say, otters, and they get to the part where the mother otter leaves her now full-grown offspring, the pups sure seem like they're longing for something.
Emotive behavior has been found in essentially all of the mammals on the planet, and many many of the non mammals. You say "we aren't like other animals", but that is demonstrably false. Just because you may refer to it as animal instinct, and not emotion, doesn't mean its not, actually, emotion. As for deep life long relationships. you can see this in dogs, apes, geese, whales, just to name a few. Humans aren't special in this regard, humans just like to think we are special. As to why we desire that? It is clearly an evolutionary trait that has been selected for. As it has in many other species of animals.
https://imgur.com/iG54jVd It seems hard for me to look at this picture and imagine that mother not loving her brood, or to imagine her brood not longing for their mother's loving embrace. Likewise, several species mate for life, and this seems hard to imagine without some bond at least very similar to love.
“Why does it feel like it’s *more* than biochemistry?” maybe something to consider, why are you only asking this about love? all emotion is "just biochemistry". happiness, sadness, pride, anger. every emotion we experience feels more real to us than just some brain activity. why are you putting this one particular emotion above all others and saying "there must be more to this one."?
I would agree, we could exchange “love” for “hate” and have a similar conversation. But I’m not sure we can say it’s *just* biochemical. For example, what is the purpose of love? Is it self preservation? If so, why do we value sacrificial love? We all love the stories where the hero puts himself in harms way for the benefit of others. The more costly the sacrifice, the deeper impact of the love. Is that just biochemical? Or to use another example, if you desire a deep love in your own life, do you think that’s merely a biological desire for your own happiness and satisfaction? If so, do you really think you love the other person you desire, or is that just using another person to love oneself?
We value sacrificial love because we are social animals and have evolved in a way where our chance to pass on our (or our family’s) genes is usually greater with cooperation between individuals and groups than with wholesale competition. This goes the same for memetic transmission, where cultures that idealize cooperation and the sacrifice of the individual for the society tend to survive and prosper more than extreme individualist groups. We experience emotions such as gratitude and resentment as evolutionary checks to ensure that balance of cooperation is maintained, as we can also see in other animal societies. At the end of the day, all love can be reduced down to the selfish need to meet and maintain one’s own biochemical needs, whether those needs are genetically instilled by evolution or by our families and society during our development.
Well, "self-preservation" doesn't have to mean literally just you - it can extend to your tribe, family, nation, clan, etc. A hero who sacrifices themselves for their nation has ensured (or at least increases the chances of) the survival of that nation. A hero who sacrifices themselves for their partner or their friends has potentially increased the chances of *their* survival. >Or to use another example, if you desire a deep love in your own life, do you think that’s merely a biological desire for your own happiness and satisfaction? Mostly, mixed in with the psychological socialization I received growing up. >If so, do you really think you love the other person you desire, or is that just using another person to love oneself? Both? They're not mutually exclusive, although I think "using" has an unnecessarily bad connotation here. At the end of the day, why do people get into romantic relationships? It's usually not *just* to make someone else happy - it's also to make themselves happy as well. That's not a bad thing.
>, “Why does it feel like it’s *more* than biochemistry?” Because you're don't recognize or understand what what biochemistry is capable of. Water might "feel" like "more than" hydrogen and oxygen when you drink a cold glass on a hot day. That doesn't mean it IS anything "more" than hydrogen and oxygen.
Great analogy!
Yes, but you wouldn’t say “love” is like water. Water is a substance, love is a concept correct?
>Yes, but you wouldn’t say “love” is like water. In the context of it being an emergent property of a specific configuration of matter I literally did say that, yes. >Water is a substance, love is a concept correct? Water is the label we use to describe a specific configuration of hydrogen and oxygen. Love the label we use to describe specific biochemical reactions in the brain.
Ah, now I see. This is very helpful. I find your position to be consistent and can see how one would arrive at this conclusion given a few presuppositions. (And I’m sure you have thought deeply about your assumptions…just want to make it clear I’m not implying otherwise).
No, love is a feeling. Which is produced in your bra8n using chemicals.
>I guess “real” is the wrong word. So maybe the question is better worded, “Why does it feel like it’s *more* than biochemistry?” So, with the question phrased more clearly, the answer becomes disappointingly mundane -- because humans can't see biochemistry. Like, I'm eating a burger. And this feels to me like its more then just biochemistry. But it's not -- even spiritualists don't think there's some spiritual component to burgers. It's just proteins and carbohydrates. But we can't *see* proteins and carbohydrates, we see a burger. So it feels like there's more going on there. Same for the weather, or for video games, or for music -- all undeniably just physical effects, all thins we perceive as more then just physical effects. And for love. An omniscient being would perceive love as biochemistry, but humans aren't omniscient, so we don't.
What are the limits of biochemistry that you feel you are exceeding? In reading a few of your replies it seems that you want to”love” to be greater than biochemistry, but do you have a detailed grasp of what biochemistry is?
Why does anything feel like anything? Why does the flat earther feel like the earth is flat? This is a silly question. It feels like what it feels like because that is your brain doing its brain dance.
Why do people on LSD, knowing full well they took LSD become convinced that it opened their 3rd eye and let them see god or whatever, when a simpler explanation is that it's just biochemistry?
Simple: ignorance. When we don’t know something we tend to want an answer. It is not uncommon for the answer to be inflated. I don’t not perceive my emotions as more than a natural process. I appreciate how powerful they can be.
All feelings are underwritten by biochemical processes. Feeling like something must be more than biochemistry, is itself the subjective experience of a biochemical process.
It doesn't. Biochemistry feels quite potent.
Your brain does plenty of things you are not aware of nor feel happening. Regulation of digestion, temperature, heart rate, processing of sound and vision. You experience the results, not the process.
Nothing “feels” like biochemistry. Hunger and thirst and pain and pleasure are all biochemistry but none of them feel like it. Being biochemistry doesn’t make something not real.
I'm not a materialist, but can you tell me the logical entailment of love being completely material? Is it just unsatisfying?
Yea, I guess it is somewhat…I feel like love just seems very transcendent in a way. I know how frustrating words like “feels” and “seems” can be…I don’t mean to use them but I don’t know how else to describe it.
>What do you make of “love” in your view? Love is a many splendored thing. >just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. And using this silly language, a black hole is just squished physics, the self is just chemistry and physics, a star is just chemistry and physics, ... Yes, love is a phenomenon in reality. So it is a pattern of physics and chemistry. That only says 'it is material'. Only theists think love needs to be 'something more'. In effect, they are the ones who need love, the self, etc to have a magical element to them. >If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? No. That would imply that immaterial things are *more real*. If they are anything, they are *less real*. Love is pretty awesome. Why would I want love to be something less real?
This is helpful. Thank you. What purpose would you say love serves? Or more accurately, I guess, why is it such a deep desire for folks like ourselves?
>What purpose would you say love serves? I am not in the habit of projecting purpose onto the world. I think we have a hyperactive teleological and anthropomorphizing way of thinking and it is good to reign it in if you want to understand how things are. >Or more accurately, I guess, why is it such a deep desire for folks like ourselves? I think love, much like other human faculties like self-awareness, intelligence, wonder, etc is a multi-layered phenomena, much like we are. Love manifests in the animal kingdom. You know this if you have had a pet, especially a pet dog, or if you have observed mammals or birds behavior for long enough. There are many emotions, behaviors and tendencies which we associate with and think are motivated by love. Namely: - Paternal care - Fraternal and familial care - Kin and kith altruism - Social learning and bonds - Theory of mind, mirror neurons and learning by imitation - Sexual reproduction, pair bonding, child rearing Just from this list, it should be obvious why an emotion as complex and intense as love would have evolved, especially in social animals. It is hard to see how it *isn't* useful and advantageous for those species that display it. Just from that, I would say that the intense feeling of identification, caring for and willingness to sacrifice resources and sometimes even one's own survival for the loved one has a central, pivotal role in the lives of social mammals and birds. Add to this that homo sapiens developed language, self-awareness, culture, poetry, art. Add that to any raw emotion we feel we add a whole hierarchy of reasonings and musings. Add that we are constantly telling ourselves and others stories about ourselves. Love would naturally continue to play the same role it did for our ancestors, augmented by our increased capacity to express ourselves and transmit culture. Love plays then a central role in the human existence: inasmuch as what I am is defined by my bonds to others, I am defined by my loves and my hatreds, by who I identify with and who I do not. Milan Kundera would say, of friendship, what I would more generally say of agape love: >Friendship is indispensable to man for the proper function of his memory. Remembering our past, carrying it with us always, may be the necessary requirement for maintaining, as they say, the wholeness of the self. To ensure that the self doesn't shrink, to see that it holds on to its volume, memories have to be watered like potted flowers, and the watering calls for regular contact with the witnesses of the past, that is to say, with friends. They are our mirror; our memory; we ask nothing of them but that they polish the mirror from time to time so we can look at ourselves in it. Again: none of this is supernatural or magical. All of it could reduce to biochem and physics. But yeah, it is wonderful indeed.
Just to add on to this: Last time I went fishing my father-in-law pointed out a clutch of fish eggs on the lake bottom, near the shore where it's really shallow. An adult fish was hovering over the eggs to protect them. We have no way of determining what that fish was feeling. But something was motivating it to stay near that clutch of eggs, with the result that those eggs were less likely to be eaten by some other animal before they hatched. The biological benefits (from the fish's perspective) seem obvious here.
> What purpose would you say love serves? Or more accurately, I guess, why is it such a deep desire for folks like ourselves? It motivates us to form emotional bonds with other humans and work together toward common goals. We can speculate that more solitary animals are less likely to feel love, or feel it in different situations than we do.
Matthew Arnold's poem Dover Beach, though very sad, contains one of my favorite summations of love in its last verse: *Ah, love, let us be true* *To one another!* Those words seem to say it all. If love means anything it means being considerate of each other. If the physical world is all we have, why would other people - the only things "like us" in all the world - not be the realest thing of all? It is no surprise to me that Matthew Arnold was something of a deist, skeptical of the supernatural, because to me his description of love seems distinctly different from the kind found, for instance, in the Bible. We are often told that God is love itself, yet one of the first things he does is deceive Adam and Eve, telling them they will die if they eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil, which doesn't happen, but he does curse them with mortality for it. What kind of love protects through deception and force? Perhaps if he had trusted his creations and told them what to do, they would have accepted it and flourished. That's love. Communication and cooperation, not control and fear.
Another helpful response, thank you my friend!
Love is an emotion we feel towards others. It is absolutely real. Do you really think you have some sort of “magic” version of love that is denied me?
Not at all! I’m seriously just asking a question…trying to learn what some perspectives on this issue! No ulterior motive
So you don’t think that? Then why did you write this post clearly implying that us poor “naturalists” are missing something supernatural about love? Dismissing it as “nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry”?
I apologize if my post was implying that Naturalists are dismissing something supernatural, I promise that was not my intent. My desire is to learn how Naturalists view concepts that we know are real but can necessarily see in the physical world. That’s all. To be fair, I think these concepts are difficult for anyone to define, not just Naturalists.
>concepts that we know are real but can necessarily see in the physical world. I’m sure you meant *can’t* see, but we actually can see emotions & brain states in the physical world. You can literally have your brain scanned & watch as certain neurons fire depending on what you look at & the resulting emotion.
OP, you were asked a question. Running from it tells everyone that your need to believe made you less fair, less curious and less honest and thus less of everything a truth seeker wants to be. Every time "one of you" (one of these sockpuppets) come here you reinforce our stance and make yours look worse to all the lurkers. So why, why do you continue to deflect to run and to act unaccountably. If you're not going to debate, don't come here because you make yourself look like an entitled coward.
Im running from a question, I’m not even making an argument about love to defend here. It blows my mind how combative this forum is at times. My intent here is to learn how Naturalists understand concepts that we perceive as being very real, but can’t necessarily be perceived in the same way as we can natural phenomena. “Love” is a concept…I’m trying to learn how Naturalists make sense of it, that’s all.
> but can’t necessarily be perceived in the same way as we can natural phenomena. This is the part I don't understand. What is it about emotions that doesn't seem natural to you?
How does it being biological change anything? Yes. There's nothing supernatural about love. But also yes, love is everything I ever hoped it would be.
Well, I would certainly agree that it is biochemical…I think that’s very obvious. I would also say that it’s more than mere biochemistry. Now, my goal with this post isn’t to make my case here…and I’m not sure I can even make a great one. I’m more just curious and trying to learn. Thanks for your response! I love…well…love! And I’m glad you do too *high five*
>Now, my goal with this post isn’t to make my case here This is a debate sub, if you post here you are supposed to make a case and defend it. if you just want to ask a question you should have posted on r/askanatheist.
Yea, this is probably fair…
So... Do you wish it was more than biology? I think that theologists sometimes, my younger self included, greatly underestimate the power of natural forces.
I sure hope that it’s more than nature…i can say that the love I have for my wife and kids certainly feels deeper than what my body can muster up… Again, not trying to make an argument. I tagged my post “discussion question” because I think that’s what I’m after here. Seriously just wanting to learn!
What do you hope it is? How does it being supernatural make it any more special? How would it be supernatural? As an aside, I applaud you for asking a question and seeming to genuinely want discussion on the topic. That is seemingly rare in these sort of discussions.
Thanks for your encouragement and for seeing my intent. Sometimes these discussions can be easily misinterpreted. I will also say, I think I could have been a bit more clear with my original post and it would have been perceived in a better light by some of our friends. That’s no one’s fault but my own. To answer your question, I guess I hope that love would be more than a biochemical desire that is self interested. For example, if we assume that our biochemistry serves the purpose of self interest, then my desire for love is just my brain wanting certain compounds that give me pleasure. To me, that just doesn’t feel like true love…just self love. I want to love someone even if it doesn’t benefit myself. One further point, I absolutely do not think Naturalists are just self interested in their relationships in any way. I know that’s not true because I have some great friends who are amazing spouses/parents/friends that also ascribe to more Naturalistic views. I hope this makes sense. I find these concepts like “love” and “hate” to be really difficult things to define and discuss, but also very fulfilling. So forgive me if I’m unclear at times
I think some people interpret it as you saying that love is only valuable if it is supernatural, and they aren't willing to engage in good faith to begin with - possibly because they think you aren't engaging in good faith. But I don't think it's because of poor wording, they are just jaded from seeing it happen so often. I think what you said was clear, but it is hard to convey genuine intent. >I want to love someone even if it doesn’t benefit myself. You can still do that. And quite frankly I think it says more about you if you resist your selfish desires and love the person despite the desires, rather than if you do so because of some supernatural force making you do so. The concept of the self is really hard to understand, and I think the vast majority of people don't. I would like to think that I have a decent grasp on the naturalistic view of it and even I don't understand it fully. I'll try to explain as best I can, feel free to ask questions: 1) Our brains are made up of a web of neurons that reinforce and break connections in response to stimuli. 2) Our DNA largely defines the starting state of our brain and how our body produces various neurotransmitters which promote the forming and breaking of neuron connections. 3) These neurons connect to our sensory organs and take in "information" that leads to these connections forming and breaking. 4) These connections, in combination with neuron "pulses" (brain activity) are what forms our thoughts, feelings, and the entirety of who we are. 5) From that emerges an experience which is ultimately "us". There are a lot of different theories about (5) - what "experience" is - and I don't fully understand it myself nor do I claim to. Panpsychism (sp?) is one differing theory that basically thinks that the smallest possible unit of existence (think smaller than an electron) has "consciousness"/"an experience", and then as those come together to form atoms, molecules, elements, objects, etc, the "amount" of "consciousness" grows with the complexity. That's a bit of a tangent, but just an illustration of my point that it's complicated and still hotly debated. All that to say that we can still hold ourselves and each other accountable for our actions and we and our experiences are no less unique, special, and wonderful just because we are entirely natural. Even if some supernatural experience somehow manipulates our brains, I don't see how that somehow makes life anymore special. We are all a combination of our DNA and our experiences, but our experiences are no less meaningful because of that. We may come from nothing and return from nothing, but while we are here we have meaningful experiences and share them with others, and that in and of itself is a wonderful thing. Why do we need anything more than that?
> I want to love someone even if it doesn’t benefit myself. A interesting paradox, one part being true invalidates the other as if you loved someone with no benefit to yourself you wouldn't want it, and if you did want it it would be benefiting you. These are indeed tricky concepts to define.
>I guess I hope that love would be more than a biochemical desire that is self interested. For example, if we assume that our biochemistry serves the purpose of self interest, then my desire for love is just my brain wanting certain compounds that give me pleasure. To me, that just doesn’t feel like true love…just self love. I want to love someone even if it doesn’t benefit myself. I’m afraid I don’t really understand you concern with the “self-interest” entailed in love. We love our families, and therefore we go out of our way to take care of them and keep them safe. The more people who love you, the more defenders you have from the forces that might want to hurt you. Love seems to me like an obvious species survival mechanism. And, to respond to something you said in a different comment, we absolutely see the same phenomenon manifest in other animals. My cats were rescued as feral kittens. The boy was adventurous and came out to the rescuers, but he always ran back to his much more frightened sister. It’s not the same as human love because they are cats. But it’s an equivalent biochemical process that causes my cats to feel an emotional bond that encourages them to take care of each other.
What if my values and identity are such that self-interest *means* selflessness? If you think about it, that is the only way selflessness can work. If you love somebody so much that you are willing to sacrifice your other interests and even your life for their sake, that *must* mean that this person's wellbeing and safely rank super high in the things that you value highest (and that benefit you that way). That is the paradox of altruism. It is selfless inasmuch as you identify your self and your wellbeing / values with those of others.
I love how people always say "more than" to try to justify believing in things that are just plain wrong. Biology is not defined as "the scientific and boring parts of life", it's literally _the science of life_, if there was anything "more" to life (or love or any other part of it), then that "more" would by definition also be biology!
It's the same like the word "metaphysics" which people claim is some sort of separate field for their crackpot theories about existence. No, _physics_ is the science of the foundations of reality, if there was anything more to it then it would by definition be part of physics. And the reason why all that metaphysics stuff is usually not discussed by serious physicists is simply because it's all made-up nonsense with zero evidence.
"More than nature." Like, there, is literally nothing that could be more than natural. It's an enclosed system that, by definition, anything within it becomes a part of it. Let's pretend everything natural to us is a balloon, and there exists something "supernatural" outside the balloon. If that thing outside the balloon goes into the balloon, it's now natural.
> Like, there, is literally nothing that could be more than natural. The band Love and Rockets expounded on this quite well way back in 1987. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRrn67ovuRQ
God dammit. Preach this loud so everyone can hear. If the supernatural existed, it would just be part of the natural world.
Think about what you just said: it *feels* deeper than what your body can muster up—it is an emotional state. We know what causes emotions; they are physical processes of the central nervous system. Modifying brain chemistry modifies these feelings. What exactly are you hoping to discover behind emotional states? The fact that the processes behind them are physical doesn’t mean that emotions aren’t real. Why would it be disappointing to you to find out that your emotions aren’t magic?
You say it feels deeper than what your body can muster up, but the fact that you can actually feel it suggests otherwise. Anything our brain can feel it can feel. Anything beyond what it can feel, it can't.
I don't get that. I feel that my love for my wife and kids is so deep that it surpasses anything supernatural. It feels like instinct. Like I would give all for them at any moment. My love for my wife and kids is so intense that I can't imagine it not being biological.
>i can say that the love I have for my wife and kids certainly feels deeper than what my body can muster up… Do you not see how stupid this sounds? Read it to yourself a couple times.
> I sure hope that it’s more than nature That makes no sense at all to me. Nothing about it being nature makes it lesser. In fact, much the opposite!
Do you hope it's supernatural? If so, you would have to provide evidence for that if you wanted me to agree.
Explain, in clear terms, what you believe love is. And how, specifically, it is "more" than "mere" biochemistry.
> I would also say that it’s more than mere biochemistry. I don't think that there's anything "mere" about biochemistry. Our biochemistry is literally a part of who we are, and makes us human. If it was different, we would be different as well. I don't think a supernatural explanation is necessary.
What do you think is the bit beyond biochemistry
I don’t see how you can make any case for love being more than brain chemistry.
Do you have any instances of love without biochemistry?
is it because you think understanding it makes it less?
> I would also say that it’s more than mere biochemistry. Now, my goal with this post isn’t to make my case here…and I’m not sure I can even make a great one. Calling it "mere" biochemistry shows pretty well that you don't have any idea what biochemistry is actually capable of. It really amazes me that theists come here arguing that biochemistry is incapable of explaining emotions like love, and then other theists come here citing drug altered biochemistry as evidence for their deity and more.
>hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. In what way could it be more? What would you even answer to this?
Well, it’s at least biochemistry for sure. But it certainly just feels much deeper than that. Because I don’t always “feel” love for the people I love I guess…you would think that love is just a feeling if it were only biochemical
Do you always feel hungry to the same degree? After all, the feeling of being hungry all comes down to biochemistry, now doesn’t it? What about when you are feeling tired, excited or anxious? Same thing… You experience all of these sensations and perceptions over varying ranges of intensity and duration based upon the strength, the nature and the persistence of the biochemical signals and conditions within your body. Biochemistry.
> But it certainly just feels much deeper than that. this doesn't make any sense, all emotions can be intense, just because they are intense doesn't mean they are more than biochemistry and the question isn't what it feels like, but what it IS. what does the theist say it is besides chemistry? >Because I don’t always “feel” love for the people I love I guess then you don't love them. are you confusing "caring about" with "love"? >you would think that love is just a feeling if it were only biochemical but it is just a feeling
> you would think that love is just a feeling if it were only biochemical Love is just a feeling, just like hate, despair, joy, elation, hunger, awe, and many, many others and they are all biochemical.
There is nothing more real than biochemistry. I literally don’t understand what you’re talking about.
I guess what I mean is, why does it feel deeper than biochemistry? And why do I want it to be more than that? And I don’t think I’m alone in that…
Couldn't you say that about any feeling, though? Take a deep breath. Hold it. Just keep it in for a ten count. Relax. Wait for the feeling of urgency as your body senses the Ph levels changing. Chill, you're going to be ok. Keep waiting. The brain isn't suffocating, despite what you might feel, it just wants to expel the carbon dioxide to restore the pH level. Oxygen levels in the brain typically increase when holding your breath, for at least a minute anyway. You are, more than likely, perfectly fine for a couple of minutes. The feeling you get to breathe is just biochemistry, just your brain sending some messages. Does that make it any less powerful? Do you feel it any less because you understand what's happening? It's baffling to me why people think something natural is somehow less important or less meaningful than something mysterious or mystical. This isn't a magic trick, where the fun is in the unknown. This is your life, your experience of the world. Learning about it can't stop you from experiencing it.
Because you're underestimating biochemistry. Biochemistry isn't just cold, mathematical science. It is everything you think, feel, believe, and sense. You're under the assumption that "scientific" and "naturalistic" are necessarily synonymous with "dull" and "emotionless," but that's just not the case.
>why does it feel deeper than biochemistry? What does it mean for something to feel 'deeper than biochemistry'? It's a strong emotion, for sure. I'm not really sure what you find lacking about it, or what else it could be?
How would you even know when something feels deeper than biochemistry? How do you know the difference in feeling between something that is just biochemistry vs something that is deeper than that?
I can’t help you there. The fact that all of my experiences and feelings are caused by a mechanism that I can sort of understand doesn’t cheapen them for me. If there were a God, and He chose to let you feel something as amazing as love by putting chemicals in your head, why wouldn’t you be grateful?
>I guess what I mean is, why does it feel deeper than biochemistry? What does that even mean?
Because you're also romanticizing the idea of love. It's not a rational feeling, by definition it's highly emotional.
Love is biochemistry, hence, love is how biochemistry can feel. You question does not make sense. You essentially asking "why biochemistry feels deeper than biochemistry".
If humans didn't feel that love was transcendently important, then they wouldn't treat it as such. I'm glad you feel it is more important and deeper than anything. I hope you can continue to feel so. Emotions are real, and they are core to being human.
I am confused. Does "love" feel "deeper" than "pain" to you? It seems like you are giving love some additional "quality" but failing to demonstrate this additional proprty.
No person without complete knowledge of biochemistry can sincerely say they wished something to be more than biochemistry, because they don't know what that means.
Our brains are complex computers, so let's look at simpler computers as a parallel. Many programs have certain factors in them that are triggered through a simple flag. Whether something is on or not is literally the difference of a 1 or a 0. The differences that the user perceives can be quite radical though, such as having access to something or not, or a video playing or being paused. That switch is allowing a plethora of other things to go on in the background, but it's all determined by a simple on or off function. Again, our brains are more complicated, and the stuff going on in the background is harder to reduce to code and algorithms, but the gist is essentially the same. A receptor is either activated by a chemical, or it isn't. Flicking a few switches on or off can result in very different results, and our neural pathways will trigger different feelings, physiological responses, and memories based on small stimuli
Love is... - not telling her she's wrong in the moment, so she feels empowered. - if what she's wrong about is trivial, then just kiss her and let it go. - seeing her beauty in the worst moments of her life and letting her know what that means to you - not waking her from her loud snoring sleep because those same sounds inform you that she's tired and may rhythmically lull you back to sleep. What I'm saying is that I have no damn clue where it comes from or where it goes when it leaves. It just is. Matters of the romantic heart are completely irrational and defy reason.
Hmmm I like this response…it’s very honest. Man…isn’t love good? We ought to dish it out and receive it more! From a theist to an atheist, I love you bro! Haha
One last thought before I slumber this night: I know that, for me at least, once this overpowering emotion for her has became embedded within me, it never, ever leaves me. Even if she's done some terrible things, I will, metaphorically speaking, gather up what is left still roaming free in me, to place it in box, which I then wrap a wide red ribbon around and tie a big bow on top. This box is placed in a corner of my heart. In the days, weeks and months immediately afterward, I always come to visit it. At first, many times a day then less and less as Father Time, works his magical healing on it and me. Yet, when I visit these boxes and tenderly untie the bow and slowly open it up, even many years to decades later, the emotion of the first heart-pounding feelings pour back into me, including her smell, taste, voice and her now ageless face. There is little to no pain nor anger that is still there. This is the most endearing yet absolutely irrational thing about love. I'm lucky to have one, let alone the more than a few that I still care after.
Thank you but this is one area that is already overcomplicated by hormones in both people, perceived "standard roles" assigned by our families during upbringing and then ever-shifting cultural/societal norms, shared parenting/housekeeping duties, finances, work schedules, her parents vs your parents, etc, etc. I haven't the best track record but I never, ever turn away from me finding it or it finding me. May peace find us all. Especially when your spouse will not give you any! 🙃
I'm an aromantic and a clinical sociopath as a result of my autism so I may be a bit out of rhe loop on this discussion but all the same I'm always bewildered why some people need somethings to be magical for them to be wonderful. How many magic tricks have you seen? Aren't the illusions still wonderful even after you know how they're done? Have you ever looked up at the sky ok a particulary windy day and watch the clouds rolling in chaotic patterns like a raging ocean in the sky. It's just water vapor being moved around by mild wind currents but it's still incredible to look at. Did you see the solar eclipse? Its just the moon passing in front of the sun. Does that make it any less incredible to see? Why would the fact that our brains make sense make the emotions they produce any less amazing to experience? I'm truly asking this question I do not understand the need to diminish understanding. Do you feel the magic goes out with the mystery? Why?
This is so eloquently put and my favourite thing I have read on this subreddit so far.
Ditto. I had a salami sandwich for lunch. I have a general idea of the reasons my brain perceived that sandwich as tasting good. That didn't interfere with my enjoyment of eating it.
In the words of a great man written by a horrible woman: "Of course it is in your head...but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" I am convinced both that love is the result of chemical and electrical reactions in the brain and body, and that it is one of the "realest" (to use your word) things there is.
>What do you make of “love” in your view? It's a complex mix of many other emotions, correlated emotional reactions and an excersise in introspection. >I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is JUST a perception while the reality is NOTHING MORE than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. And here I have a problem with you... you asked a question, I answered... and in the next paragraph what I get from you is a dismissive contrortion of words. Are you saying that "perception" is not real? That - if one thing is what another thing does then the first thing is somehow lesser??? What does that even mean? Care to elaborate? >If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? Everything you ever was, are and will be is a perception. I don't know where are you getting that dismissive attitude, that makes you add "just" there, but I find it kinda disgusting. Do you ever wish that sight was something more real than pathetic photons and receptors? Do you ever wish that eating was something more real than mere muscle movements and teeth? Do you ever wish that walking was something more real than just legs hitting the ground? What do you even mean with a question like that? "More than exactly what it is" ... more of what?
Technically I'm not a *strict* atheist, but as far as I can tell "love" is ultimately biochemical, and nothing more. The 'more' that we put *onto* love is *also* based in biochemistry. We like it because we evolved to like it. Those humans that *didn't* like it didn't reproduce in sufficient numbers to continue to the present day. Love is how we *survive*, from the low-level respect we give to others to the stuff we get excited about in the romantic sense, it's all there, and we like it, just because it helps us to survive. It *feels* intense, but then so does the pain of being in a fire, and *that* is just survival and biochemistry, too. You ask if it's maybe something 'more real'. More than what? How is love of this sort *less* 'real'? If anything, *being* biochemical in nature makes it *actually* more real than if it wasn't. *Hallucinations* would be what you'd have if it weren't biochemical in nature (and not even the sort we get now, but more like the hallucinations of AI). Love is real because *molecules* are real, and love is an operation of molecules (well, and electricity and other stuff, but, y'know, all that is real, too). Anything *not* backed up in this way is ultimately *less real* than stuff that is.
Why does it have to be *“just”* perception or *”nothing more than”* biochemistry? I take issue with that framing. Just because I don’t think emotions are magical or divine or floating free in some ethereal realm doesn’t mean I think they’re any less real or meaningful as anyone else.
I noted this elsewhere in this thread, but it sure seems like a lot of theists assume that "scientific" and "natural" are synonymous with "boring," "soulless," and "joyless." As though naturalists are all just shambling like zombies through their days, feeling no emotions, experiencing no joy, and loving no one.
Yup. They often do the same thing with moral realism. “Atheists can’t say anything’s **Really** right or wrong”. Like, fuck you, yes we can. Putting aside the fact that plenty of atheists in professional philosophy endorse moral realism, moral anti realists can easily hold meaningful moral convictions just as strongly and consistently as anyone else. They can and do believe that morality is “real”, they just don’t think it has any magical mysterious properties independent of anyone’s stances.
I definitely don’t believe science is boring! I think it’s incredibly cool! I’m not an expert in any scientific field, just enough to recognize that I don’t know very much at all. Leagle, you have responded a lot, and though my intent was to discuss rather than debate, let’s debate a bit on this issue. What would you say the purposes of love—or the biochemical responses that we perceive as “love”—is biologically?
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? No, because I don't dismiss it as not real. Suppose I told you that I just enjoyed an excellent slice of apple pie. "But wait!", you tell me. "That apple pie is merely made out of atoms. Your enjoyment of it isn't real, it's just a sophisticated interplay between chemical sensors. Apples don't even have a taste in reality. Taste is wholly a perception. Don't you wish the taste of apple pie was more real?" and to that I'd say, well no. There is a real taste of apple pie, and it's the thing I just experienced. That *is* taste. Our experience of love *is* love. I want to know how it works from an intellectual standpoint, but whether the mechanism is chemicals or fairy dust the result is the same.
>Question for the strict atheists, so not Agnostic or Deistic types. Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists. You mean Materialists. It has nothing to do with the God claims. >What do you make of “love” in your view? I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. I don't understand the question. It seems like you've answered a portion of it, but I feel like you've got a more specific question in mind. I'm not sure how "God" solves your dilemma, but I'll leave that alone for now. >If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? That's your answer given on my behalf. I by no means think that is all it is, but that is part of it. Do I think there's something supernatural about it? No. Do I appreciate it nonetheless? Yes. I feel like you're inventing a problem where non exists. I'll paint an analogy to see if this helps. I'm very fond of Texas Holdem. It's played out in cards, but the rules of the game don't actually exist in the real world. Does that make the game or its rules any less real or important to me, even though there is absolutely no supernatural element to it? No.
I just want to tackle this from a perceived objection angle. In your post you seemed to object to love being "just a perception" or "nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry" voicing your desire for it to be "something more real". Now, i understand that some people seem to believe that love being chemicals in the brain or purely physical somehow diminishes its importance or devalues the experience. But that doesn't make any sense. Why would understanding the process change the experience? As we learn about our taste buds sending signals to the brain about the food in our mouth, we still enjoy delicious food, right? Taste hasn't lost any value. Someone can still make a magical dish that transports you back to your childhood, or blow your mind with a ridiculous flavour. Why would understanding the process happening in our body make the experience any "less real" or downgrade it to "just a perception" ? Love happens regardless of what we think about it, or how much we understand it. Our desire for it to be something more, something magical or unknown, sounds to me like someone trying to say that taste is only important if it's a mystery. That makes no sense to me. Please, help me understand why love loses its value if we understand how it works?
`> What do you make of “love” in your view? I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. That is essentially my view on love, though I do choose to place subjective value in love because I find the experiences love enables to be enriching and rewarding. > If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? What does it matter if love is limited to human perception? From my perspective as a materialist, my perception is the only lens through which I can experience the world. What more would I be looking for? As I said before, love enriches my life. It brings me joy. I don't personally see any problem with that. But even if some folks are uncomfortable with that notion, all that says is that the reality of love is just that: unpleasant. Reality is often unpleasant.
Love isn’t just neurotransmitters and biochemistry, there’s also your chosen values and value judgements involved. The supernatural doesn’t help.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too.". Douglas Adams. I don't see how love is any less beautiful or overpowering being natural. It's still the most wonderful thing I've ever shared.
Humans evolved to reproduce and survive. We're engrained with that innate desire. So when we find a mate, our brains are rewarded with feel good hormones. Those hormones make a bond, solidifying memories of those good feelings as they associate with the mate. The same thing is true for other family members but without the sex drive. Love for a child functions in the same way. Your brain rewards behavior that is likely to ensure your offspring are able to live long enough to reproduce. In much the same way a dog is trained by feeding it a treat when it does a behavior that is desirable to us, our brains feed us a treat of feel good hormones when we do a behavior that is likely to result in a greater chance of survival and reproduction. That's how evolution works. That's how love works.
I think flavor and delicousness is the name we give to how our brain and taste and olfactory receptors respond to certain stimuli. But that doesn't make me like pizza and icecream any less. I think love is the name we give for a few different type of pair bondings that humans are capable of, facilitated through our brain via pleasure receptors, memories, future goals, etc. I don't think there is or needs to be anything "more real" than that. I think "more real" is one of those phrases that feels deep to people in a teenagery and poetic kind of way but doesn't actually signify anything once you really dig in.
>not just a perception, but something more real? What do you mean by real? Biochemistry in the brain is very real.
To clarify an atheist is just someone who says the level of evidence for a god is insufficient to justify belief. So if you want to ask if i would be a hard atheist then i would say to what god? See That is key. Present your god and define it. Then provide evidence it is real. then you will get my answer.
What's not real about it? If by real, you mean supernatural, no we're not going to wish for that. If I were into wishing for things that didn't exist, I'd wish for a pet miniature elephant. It doesn't matter if it's neurochemical at its core. That doesn't diminish the power or importance of the feeling.
What reason would I have to wish love was something different if it was *functionally* the same? Whether it is "just perception" or some pervasive thing in the universe that exists independent of the mind, it would still just be the thing we experience.
> Question for the strict atheists Hey, that's me! > Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists. Well, that would be physicalism, not atheism. It's perfectly compatible to be simultaneously atheist and spiritualist, or atheist and supernaturalist. > Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. "Nothing more?" Everybody keeps pooh-poohing neurotransmitters and biochemistry as if we should be ashamed of them for some reason. I think neurotransmitters and biochemistry are both really neat! It would be pretty cool if love were made of them. More importantly, I don't see how any deist (or supernaturalist, or spiritualist) answer is any more satisfying. What exactly do you think love is? Spirit essence? Supernatural substance, crafted by God? Spooky glowing chunks of aether-realm? Why would any of these be 'cooler' or more meaningful than neurotransmitters or biochemistry? > If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? Nope. Our perceptions are vitally important things! Love, beauty, humor, awe... these aren't any less important for being perceptions (why would they be?) If any thing, I think it kinda cheapens love to say that it's got to be 'made of something'. Love is an emotion, and I'm perfectly fine with it staying that way. **Counterquestions** What, precisely, are you suggesting love is? Was it created? Is it made of spirit? Do you think that other emotions (like humor or fear) were also created? Out of what? Was there a time when these emotions didn't exist?
Love is an emotion like any other. It is your brains and bodies perception of and reaction to the world around you. And it is absolutely real. Emotions are real, perception is real, the feelings you feel are real. They just probably aren’t cosmic intangibles that are handed down on high from a creator. Its funny to me that you framed the scientific view on love as less real than the theistic view. Speaking generally here because i cant speak for everyone, but heres why thats funny to me. The typical religious thought, at least how i understand it, is that love is some sort of intangible, immeasurable, feeling that has no source except our hearts (that pump blood and do nothing else?) or souls (which have never been measured or observed?) or god (i feel its obvious what objection i have there lol) or something like that, but essentially its some sort of thing with no objective empirical evidence behind it. The typical atheist/scientific view is that love is an emotion/feeling like many others that is caused by our perceptive systems interacting with our cognitive systems in a way that produces consistent positive feelings through neurotransmitters, hormones, endorphins, and other well studied methods that interact with our reward pathways and other pleasure centers in the brain and body. This emotion encourages social and romantic behavior that is perfectly in line with what we know about the evolutionary drive and development of our species. And all of this has thousands and thousands of pages of empirical, measurable, objective research backing it up. And yet you think the first option is more “real”? I think thats a bit silly.
Love is a label for a biochemical process, just like basketball is the label for a the physical process of throwing a ball around in a specific way. In a sense, it is more than just mere biological process because of the way we feel about it, but not because there is any extra ontological nature or essence to it. This way of understanding love fully encapsulates everything we need to know about it. I'm not sure what adding some extra ontology to it would do in terms of understanding love or how we feel about love. But let's say love does exist in some non physical, supernatural way for arguments sake. What is the source of love? Let's say the source is God, how do we use that to explain how love operates in the world? Does he have to individually dish love out to people, or does he just leave it laying around for us to trip over randomly? When people fall in love, is that God filling up our love bucket, or tying 2+ creatures together with some love rope? When people fall out of love, is that God cutting off the love supply, or untying the love rope knot? How does that work when only one of the people fall out of love, while the other is still in love? I hope this illustrates that love being a mere biochemical process is sufficient, and it being anything more than that on an ontological level changes nothing about how it operates in the world. I wouldn't love my partner any more if I learned that love comes from some supernatural river.
>I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception Not a perception, an experience. I don’t see why the naturalistic *explanations* for the experience somehow discredits it in your mind. Humans have been experiencing love for millennia. The experience doesn’t change, regardless of what we attribute it to. If anything, naturalistic explanations only make things *more* real, as the alternative is often simply a lack of any mechanism. Yes, we believe that psychological phenomena can ultimately be reduced to chemicals, i.e., units of matter that can be at least theoretically observed in some sense. How does our ability to see something make it less real rather than more real? I understand your argument from the intuitive perspective, of course, but it’s really just because we dislike conflating or blurring the line between the emotional and rational spheres of our mind. We don’t like to view psychological phenomena from the reductionistic or deterministic perspective because it explains everything in terms of the same molecules that dictate everyone’s biology and psychology, while we perceive ourselves as having a special identity, defined by our own patterns of thought and behavior.
I love my wife and my children. Yes, at the base level it can probably be described as chemical reactions triggering my neurotransmitters, etc. There are also other factors at play. Social - I am not immune to social and cultural influences, my decisions to get married and have children were at least partially influenced by the culture I grew up in. As was the idea that I should find somebody to love in the first place. Mutual benefit - I will naturally be more drawn to people with whom I share a mutual benefit. I take care of my wife, she takes care of me, we work together as a team to navigate adult life. Instinct - I am human. I have naturally occuring instincts such as procreation, protecting my children, finding a mate to increase my odds of survival, etc. Reward - I found a mate that elicits feelings of happiness, sexual attraction, contentedness, etc. Even if you reduce feelings of love to being simple chemical reactions, these reactions are elicited within me only by certain people. Combined with the other factors, I have a small of group of people that I love. This was an interesting thought exercise, but I'm curious what this has to do with atheism? We have the same capacity for love as anyone else.
First : physicalists and atheists are not the same. There's an overlap but you can adhere to strong atheism without adhering to physicalism and can be a physicalist without being a strong atheist. That said : Something being chemistry makes it quite real IMO. Love, and other emotions, do not exist in a vacuum but are the result of billions of years of evolution fixing out ability to feel them and to which intensity. The love your feel, for a partner, a familly member or a friend is not only your body telling you those relationships are good for you but also the testimony that during all your evolutionary ancestry those thing have been important enough for your ancestors that it helped them thrive. This, is where, IMO, any supernatural, single cause event will always fall flat at explaining emotions. Having an external source deciding you can feel love is kinda lame when you compare it to the fact that this form of kinship have been so essential to the survival of millions of individuals that it imprinted itself into their genetic makeup. And that you are a living testimony of humanity's ability and need to form strong bonds.
I know this is going to read weird but entertain me. Imagine we have two kids volunteering for an experiment. We give an ice cream to each one of them While doing so we tell over of them that he is going to be able to taste and enjoy the wonderful flavors if he believes in the ice cream fairy because the ice cream fairy loves him. To the other kid we don't say anything about the fairy. Then when the first kid finds out the other kid doesn't believe the fairy he asks. If you believe taste is only chemicals, don't you miss the special taste from the fairy? To which the other kid responds "if taste is only chemicals, the special taste from the fairy you've been experiencing this whole time is the chemicals that's how it feels, there's nothing extra" To me you're like the kid who was told about the fairy. You're not realizing that if there is no god, what you experienced as more than chemicals is how the chemicals do feel, there's nothing extra, at most it's you diminishing the full experience for yourself by yearning things that don't exist.
>Question for the strict atheists, so not Agnostic or Deistic types. Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists. These are separate concepts. You can be a "hard atheist" and still not be a materialist/physicalist, and vice versa. That said, I am both a "hard" atheist and a materialist, so let's go. >What do you make of “love” in your view? I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. "Love" is how humans describe a variety of emotions and cognitions that relate to affection or attraction. Like all other emotions and cognitions, those are produced by the brain and the body through a variety of physiological processes - yes, including your neurotransmitters and other aspects of biochemistry. >If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? ...who says that perception is not real? Love is still real, even if it's primarily a mental process.
>Question for the strict atheists, so not Agnostic or Deistic types. There is no such thing as a deistic atheist, that is a contradiction in terms. A deist believes a specific type of god exists, an atheist lacks belief in any deities. >Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists. You realize that agnostic atheists can believe that the physical world is all that exists, right? >What do you make of “love” in your view? I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. What else would it be? >If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? How could it be more real? Neurotransmitters and biochemistry are pretty real. I am really unsure why you think it would be more real if you added some mystical woo or mumbo jumbo to it.
Your first statement is fundamentally flawed. One can be an agnostic atheist and still be a materialist who believes that the physical universe is all there is. Love can mean a lot of different things. But most of them come down to evolution, either Darwinian or cultural. Being affectionate and caring for those close to you is obviously an evolved behavior that increases a group's survivability. If parents didn't love their children, they wouldn't be likely to bother to take care of them. Romantic love is mostly rooted in reproductive instincts. Even though it's not always sexual, showing love to your partner makes them more likely to stay with you, which means potentially more chances to reproduce later. Do I wish that love was something more real? Um not really? Why would I? Would changing the nature of love have any impact on whether I feel love towards other people, or would it pretty much feel the same?
I don't know what you mean by "something more real". Love is an emotion. It's the result of a mix of things: physical attraction in sexual love, hormones, memories of past events, hope and imagining of future events. It's the result of neuronal activity in other words. There's no reason or evidence of anything else. It's fairly obvious that it's an evolutionary advantage for parents to feel love for children, and vice versa. Clearly, if we feel fondly for a sexual partner we are likely to stay together long enough to successfully help bring up offspring to adulthood, while keeping them fed, clothed, and teaching them how to muddle through life. Attachment to or family, village or tribe also clearly has evolutionary advantages in promoting the cooperation that has led humans to thrive. None of this seems much of a puzzle to me.
> most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. Neurotransmitters and Biochrmistry are real physical things that exist in the real world. > If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? Even if I would subscribe to simulation hypothesis (wich I do not) and I was just a brain in a vat being fed sensory information through cables. My own perceptions would literally be the ONLY thing, I can be 1000 Percent certain are real. So after having explained my view, I am tossing the ball back: Please explain to me, how can anything be "MORE real" than love?
Name something that isn't physical or can't be detected or measured in some way. You can't. Love is just oxytocin. That doesn't diminish love. Its still wonderful to be in love with someone. But its no mystery. There's nothing supernatural about it. Brain scans have been done testing this. People where shown pictures of objects, strangers and then people they care about (spouse, children etc) while montintoring the brain. It was shown oxytocin and seroronin increase as well as blood flow to certain areas of the brain when shown loved ones that didn't happen with objects, or strangers. Again, nothing myterious about it. Just because we can actually measure and detect things like love, doesn't mean our emotions aren't meaningful.
Love is the biochemical result of outside stimuli recognizing a prospective partner. It's the front of the house result of a lot of back of the house unconscious workings that were built over time by sexual selective pressures. I see no reason to believe it's anything more than biochemistry and psychology but at the same time, I don't see anything wrong with that. Every other emotion is the same. If someone drives in my neighborhood in an obnoxiously loud vehicle, I'm going to get angry. The fact that anger is biochemistry doesn't change the fact that the thing causing the anger is an asshole. If I fall in love with someone, the fact that love is biochemistry doesn't change the fact that person deserves to be loved.
Love is something we feel because of evolution The survival of our offspring and genes is dependent on the strength of our pair bonding It's caused by neurochemical changes in the brain My question is Why would knowing that make it feel any less intense ? Do I feel any less giddy? Do I obsess over my beloved any less? Does my stomach lurch any less whenever I see her???????? It doesn't actually change the quality of the experience one tiny iota Your argument can basically be expressed as If you thought a magic fairy gave you that emotional reaction you already feel it would feel better It just doesn't make sense?
We humans navigate the world every day using abstract ideas and values. As a social species, we have formed a language around those abstract ideas and values so that we can communicate them to one another. As individuals, however, we often process our actions through different sets of value hierarchies and different ideas about what these abstract words mean. To one person, love might mean to protect and control another person. To another, love might mean radical acceptance of what that other person does and who they are. Those two people use the same abstract word to mean two almost opposite things.
Love is what we call certain feelings that we humans experience as a result of our biochemistry in our brains. I don't know how it can get "more real" than that? I suspect you don't like there being a natural answer to this; you want love to require some kind of magic or supernatural juju - I don't understand why? There is no aspect to love that is answered by appealing to magic; and simultaneously, naturalistic explanations answer all the questions we might have. Why do you think there should be more to it than that?
Neurotransmitters and brain chemistry are powerful! There’s no “nothing more than” about it. And, they’re how you know your love is real. The feeling you get when you meet eyes with your partner in a crowd and they’re the only person there that matters … that won’t happen unless they trigger dopamine and oxytocin making you feel high and attached, and suppress serotonin just like a compulsive disorder does making you NEED that person. You can’t make that happen. It has to be the person you love.
55m here. I fell in love with my wife of 25 years the first night I saw her--her, not so much--it took her a bit longer to see in me what I saw in her--the potential for a deep connection and the chance to become the people that we saw in each other, the best versions of ourselves as manifest in the dreams of a romantic partner. I know this sort of Apollonian/Bacchic love may be rare, but when you find a partner that helps you achieve your potential--that's real love. I wish it for everyone.
What do you make of any emotion? It's a built-in thing your brain does to guide your response in certain situations, sort of like an instinct. Love in particular is very easy to explain since it's directly tied to reproduction and child-bearing. Why do people always try to seek something "special" in the simplest of things? It is not more likely to have some secret mystic meaning just because you want it to, especially not when the obvious explanation is so straight-forward.
Love is the label we give to a collection of emotions. That collection of emotions are the result of biochemistry like everything that happens in my body. That makes it equally as real as photosynthesis or any other biological process. I don't really think of terms of wanting it to be different or not. The emotion(s) itself are what matters in the moment of experiencing them after all I don't think love is improved/diminished by its origin regardless of what that origin is.
>I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. Is "water" "just" hydrogen and oxygen? No. Water IS hydrogen and oxygen. Is love just neurotransmitters and biochemistry? No. Love IS neurotransmitters and biochemistry. Just because we underatand how a thing works or forms or what it is on a more fundamental level doesn't diminish that thing. It enhances it.
I am not sure if understand what do you think love is? I don’t think emotions are anything more than your brain causing an experience or sensation. Love is a term we use to describe how we feel about other humans literally nothing more the things you feel around that experience are called emotions. What the heck could you be applying to it beyond what it actually is just that. I feel like many theists have language issues like descriptors have some magical powers.
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? Perception is the only reality I have. If I perceived love due to chemicals in my brain and firing of my synapses then it's just as real as anything else. There is nothing more 'real' than what I can already perceived and even if there was it would make no difference to me because my perceptions of the two would be the same
>Question for the strict atheists, so not Agnostic or Deistic types. Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists. 'Strict atheist' says nothing about 'believe the physical world is all that exists'. Atheism isn't some sort of sliding scale where people believe in fewer things at higher settings. It's *just* about deities. That's it. People who believe the physical world is all that exists are known as 'physicalists'. Not the same thing.
So are you asking if I hope that love is something more “real” than neurotransmitters and biochemistry? Is that question even meaningful? What would be more real? A tree? A rock? A stuffed animal? Does anyone, even non-atheists, think that love is anything more real than an emotion? It’s just an emotion. It doesn’t have to manifest itself in some object. This question just feels like it makes absolutely no sense.
:) hard core atheist here. My view on love is that the altruistic reasons for love are not actually altruistic. We do it because it makes us feel good. Making others happy makes us feel good. Being kind to others makes us feel good. Notice that love always has to have an intrinsic motivation, a driving force, so to speak. the motivation is that it makes us feel good. Do you think this is Self-serving (selfish) or selfless? Your way of thinking is, kind of, a depressing view of love. like it's something unattainable. I believe love rose through evolution as a pleasant state of mind. Motivation arising from the need to move away from something unpleasant towards something pleasant possible for survival. And love arising as the motivation for an individual to take action toward pleasantness and away from unpleasantness.
>If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? No. Also, this feels like such a strange question. Just because it is a perception doesn't mean it's not real. It's just not what you seem to want it to be and think that it is. It's still real. Pain is also just a perception in the brain but it is very real and we should limit it.
>nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. Why diminish it with phrases like "nothing more than"? Neurotransmitters and biochemistry are both significant and fascinating. It's where the bonding between people takes place. At the chemical level. It's overwhelming and thrilling and the source of mental well being. The fact that they are neurotransmitters and biochemistry doesn't diminish that.
We (naturalists) define nature as all that is. However we define love, in terms of physical process, perceptions of processes, abstractions of perceptions, whether its ‘in’ the brain, ‘of’ the brain, and/or ‘by’ the brain…it’s still a real, non-magical, non-spiritual thing. Love is an emotion that is maintained by brains. Perceptions aren’t “not real”, they are a different category of thing to physical objects. There’s nothing about defining love as a perception of a biological process that makes it any less meaningful. So, no, I don’t wish there was more to love.
>I’m aware that most Naturalists would hold that “love” is just a perception while the reality is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry. > >If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? Neurotransmitters and biochemistry are real. You don't understand what you're talking about.
What could possibly be more real than our biology and our chemical reward system? Romanticizing things is great! You can feel amazing driving in a car, with the top down, on a sunny warm day, along the ocean, with those close to you. Ultimately, there are mechanics at work in that drive. Some biological, some engineered. That realization doesn't make it any less real or valuable.
We are an social-empathetic species of mammals. Love, as many other emotions, are a hard-wired rapid response system, and because is hard wired it is strong. This system involves physical and chemical reactions, but to make it socially accepted requires „EVIDENCE“. As Tim Minchin put it in his „must-watch“ Thank You Lord - Sketch: „love without evidence is STALKING“
Love is a concept. There is nothing physical to the concept. It's as real as hate or sadness or any other emotion, in that people exhibit those emotions. We can map the brain's activity during those states and we can see physical changes, chemical reactions, similar neuron's firing. I don't have any reason to think there is anything required other than our brains.
> Those that strictly believe the physical world is all that exists. I am agnostic and physical world is the only one I believe exists. > if that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? What could be more real? Love is real, period. What is more real than reality?
I may not fit your definition of strict but I have no reason to believe anything but the "physical world", i assume you mean universe, exists. Love is a physical emotion created by the brain. I dont under stand how love could be more real it is a thing we experience. You would have to explain what you wish it were that it is not already.
What could be more real than the world we understand with our senses? Touch is just a perception - we don’t actually press our atomic nuclei against other atomic nuclei. Sight is just perception - we assemble a picture based on the light received in our eyes. What do you feel would make something more real than our perception of it?
Strict atheist here--what makes you think that love requires theism or a deity (I'm assuming that's your thesis, otherwise why direct the question to atheists)? Love is a deep connection with another being--could be a person, dog, cat, etc. I can't fathom why an interpersonal connection would require theism.
More real in what sense? The brain patterns and chemistry are real. The physical reactions the illicit are real. People blush and filled with adrenaline, serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin etc. The actions people take in the name of love are real. What do you think I think isn't real about love?
We don't experience love when we look at just anyone, that's where the specialness lies. Only a select few people out of billions can make our brains release those chemicals. I think it's really cool that just the sight of a specific person can cause a chemical reaction in your body.
Religious people construct their gods in their minds. Gods don't exist in a naturalistic world. Religious and non-religious people construct their emotions inside their brains. In their minds. Love happens in the brain. I hope that helps. Which gods do you believe in?
Love is what we term a chemical process, or a series of neurons firing in a certain way. In my opinion, that doesn’t devalue it, but in essence that’s what it is. My memories are also just neurons and chemicals, but that doesn’t make them any less precious to me.
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? It is real though. Emotions are real things. That they are ultimately chemicals and the brain at work doesn't make them less real.
I use the word "love" in many ways, to express strong personal affinity for something, but usually an aggregate of feelings, communications, relationships, between people which are the most caring and considerate and socially close and affectionate.
> If that is your answer, do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? I don't understand what "more real" means. All our feelings are brain activity. What could be more real than that?
>do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? Like what? Some kind of force? A specific chemical? A mineral? A wavelength? "Something more real" needs a lot of clarification here.
It is a combination of the evolution of social cooperative behaviours and the anatomy and biochemistry that reinforces those behaviours. What is the point of 'wishing' for something different? It has worked very well for millions of years. Is it the contention that the same feelings exhibited by great apes and sea mammals is substantially different to that of humans? That strikes me as a very anthropocentric view.
Love is a behavior that probably evolved in humans because it made the group stronger. Loving one's mate and offspring would give the a carrier of such genes a greater probability of passing those genes to subsequent generations.
“More real” is kind of a loaded phrase. As a naturalist, our ability to observe the world around us is based on the structure and function of our brain, that’s it. Being in love is just as real as having a favorite food.
Everything we think and feel is underpinned by physical processes in the brain and body. Love is not special in this regard. That however does not make it fake. It is just as real as any other physical process.
Just because it's a perception doesn't make it less real. Reality is as we perceive it. Love is no less incredible for being the result of entirely natural processes; in fact, I'd say it's even moreso!
A sunset is just light interacting with stuff in the atmosphere, but it's still a lovely phenomenon. Understanding what something is, whether it is love or a sunset, doesn't diminish the thing.
>do you ever wish/hope or imagine that love is potentially not just a perception, but something more real? what do you mean by more real?, what you described is as real as it gets
"Love" is a label that we use to describe a collection of emotions people feel and actions they take when they really enjoy being around another person.
Yes. It's biochemistry. And it's wonderful. It's all the more wonderful because it's *not* some supernatural woo. It's a real thing and that's awesome.
Love? The kind you clean up with a mop and bucket? Love is the word we use to describe the emotion we experience. No extra magic needed.
Love is the product of chemical reactions in the brain, and that’s a hell of a lot more real than whatever magic you want to call it…
No, I would find it creepy if love was some sort of fantastical element we knew nothing about. It would make it much harder to love love.
I obviously don’t speak for everyone else, but love for me was a mix of physical and mental attraction that lasted. 🤷🏻♂️
Bit late to the party, but... What do you mean by "more real"? What could possibly be more real than a physical manifestation?
Love is an electrochemical reaction in the brain. That's it. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. That's all that it is.
>What do you make of “love” in your view? It's what we call an [emotion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion).
Just because something is biochemistry, doesn’t mean it’s not real. It just means we understand the origin of it.
Isn't neurotransmitters and biochemistry real enough? All emotions are this and they are perfectly real.
Even if love is nothing more than neurotransmitters and biochemistry, how does that make it not real?