Existence of "love" and other emotions.

[TronSpecial]

Does "love" legitimately exist or is it simply just a chemical reaction in the brain? If the latter is true, does that mean anger, sadness, happiness, and so on are merely chemical reactions as well and nothing more? After reading about a study where scientists cut off the oxytocin receptors in rats, they were no longer rewarded (dopamine) for being around their female counterparts. The rats prior to having their receptors cut off were strictly monogamous, afterwards however, they were none other than polygamous creatures.

Now can a similar concept be applied to our emotions? Cut off some sort of receptor and just like that x emotion is nonexistent.

 

[Bobby Boulders]

That dopamine's the good shit.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

False dichotomy imo.

Every conscious experience is enabled by underlying physiological mechanisms. Learning how those work doesn't somehow take value away from our subjective experiences.

"Just a chemical reaction" never really made sense as a criticism.

 

[europe1]

So... if love does not come from Chemical Reactions in the brain... then where do you imply they are comming from?

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Then the content/substance of all of your thoughts is reducible to "chemical reactions"....
They would then not be conveyors of truth.... so, the thought "are feelings and thoughts just chemical reactions?" would also become nonrational... since itself is also just the product of nonrational chemical reactions (at least nonrational with respects for concerns about things related to 'the truth of the matter').

That undercuts the view that there's not a 'form' over and above the material that constitutes the thing in question.


So, if there's not an intended object (some lass with legs from here to there) of a mental state (say 'love')... and a conscious, intentional direction of that mental state of 'love' towards a particular object (gamy mare)... then that view, I believe, undercuts the actual ability to even call that one mental state into question.

 

[Da Speeit]

False dichotomy imo.

Every conscious experience is enabled by underlying physiological mechanisms. Learning how those work doesn't somehow take value away from our subjective experiences.

"Just a chemical reaction" never really made sense as a criticism.

Does the high cocaine exist, or is it just a chemical reaction

 

[thebluerider]

chemical reactions are real bro

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Then the content/substance of all of your thoughts is reducible to "chemical reactions"....
They would then not be conveyors of truth.... so, the thought "are feelings and thoughts just chemical reactions?" would also become nonrational... since itself is also just the product of nonrational chemical reactions (at least nonrational with respects for concerns about things related to 'the truth of the matter').

That undercuts the view that there's not a 'form' over and above the material that constitutes the thing in question.

So, if there's not an intended object (some lass with legs from here to there) of a mental state (say 'love')... and a conscious, intentional direction of that mental state of 'love' towards a particular object (gamy mare)... then that view, I believe, undercuts the actual ability to even call that one mental state into question.

Also a false dichotomy, imo.

There's no necessary contradiction between having a biochemical composition and being deliberately truth-oriented. The first enables the second.

Does the high cocaine exist, or is it just a chemical reaction

"It's just a chemical reaction" is my go-to excuse when I fart in crowded elevators. Experiences of disgust are illegitimate!

But these types of questions do depend on what notion of "exist" you choose to privilege. Certainly the chemical reaction exists in a different way than the conscious experience, but to talk of one at the expense of another is to take a position that requires justification.

 

[Da Speeit]

chemical reactions are real bro

but how do you define "real"
Is water real?
Is any of this real?

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Also a false dichotomy, imo.

There's no necessary contradiction between having a biochemical composition and being deliberately truth-oriented. The first enables the second.

I never said there was. There's obviously a biochemical composition.
You've misunderstood my mentioning of material and formal.... or maybe just didn't see it.

 

[thebluerider]

but how do you define "real"
Is water real?
Is any of this real?

maybe

 

[Osculater]

We are nothing but chemicals, bro!

 

[Da Speeit]

maybe

Maybe not.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Maybe not.

Ha! So you're a real poster. I was thinking I was getting mooked up by someone.
Maybe I will join.

 

[Jermei]

Love is what you want it to be. I've been in love with somone I only knew a couple of weeks and others ive been with for years. I loved my daughter before she was even born.

If you need a scientific explaination I'm sure there's some thesis on the release of dopamine when close to someone you love etc...

 

[MC Paul Barman]

The more the merrier.

Could you hit me up with that info again??
I clean out my inbox pretty regularly.

 

[jamiehunter]

Does "love" legitimately exist or is it simply just a chemical reaction in the brain? If the latter is true, does that mean anger, sadness, happiness, and so on are merely chemical reactions as well and nothing more? After reading about a study where scientists cut off the oxytocin receptors in rats, they were no longer rewarded (dopamine) for being around their female counterparts. The rats prior to having their receptors cut off were strictly monogamous, afterwards however, they were none other than polygamous creatures.

Now can a similar concept be applied to our emotions? Cut off some sort of receptor and just like that x emotion is nonexistent.

Yes, all of our emotions, thoughts, and actions are the result of reactions in our brain.

 

[phipps66]

Lol every person walking this Earth is just a batch of chemical reactions and string of electrical impulses.

 

[Ube]

Does "love" legitimately exist or is it simply just a chemical reaction in the brain? If the latter is true, does that mean anger, sadness, happiness, and so on are merely chemical reactions as well and nothing more? After reading about a study where scientists cut off the oxytocin receptors in rats, they were no longer rewarded (dopamine) for being around their female counterparts. The rats prior to having their receptors cut off were strictly monogamous, afterwards however, they were none other than polygamous creatures.

Now can a similar concept be applied to our emotions? Cut off some sort of receptor and just like that x emotion is nonexistent.

Words like love and happiness are symbols for the legitimate chemical reactions that go in our bodies--so, of course love legitimately exists. If through some disaster of genetic engineering people were barred from ever feeling something like love, history will say love, that special set of complex chemical reactions, once existed.

 

[TronSpecial]

Appreciate the feedback guys. Obviously not the most informed on this subject so do value the insightful posts.