Existence of "love" and other emotions.

I am in love with my dick. I am not sure if it's just a chemical reaction or if I am gay.
 
giphy.gif
 
Does "love" legitimately exist or is it simply just a chemical reaction in the brain?

So you think chemical reactions don't legitimately exist?
 
I personally believe that love is something greater, that transcends chemical reactions in this physical world.

Thought I'd throw in my hippie view on life since I believe it is impossible to correctly answer OP's question in this day and age.
 
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.

I'm not sure I even got that far in your post tbh. I was responding to:

Then the content/substance of all of your thoughts is reducible to "chemical reactions"....
They would then not be conveyors of truth....

Which is false (again, imo). Then I got to this:

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

Which is a fallacy of composition.

Then I stopped. If I misinterpreted something let me know though. But since we're here...

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.

Actually I think I agree with the rest. I'd only be skeptical about how much people really need to believe in this extra layer of existence to get what they want out of the language that they use.
 
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.

Love is not an emotion. Being "in love" is an emotion. But love is an act of will. I think this is a big confusion in people in general. They think love is "being in love" and you just cannot feel that all the time. Then people think their relationship is not right because they cannot keep this emotion up all the time.
But it is actually the act of loving someone--to want someone else's good and to be willing to do something about it,
When you use this definition it is very easy to know if someone loves you. Are they doing things for your good, or are they being selfish?
 
..................depends on the design of a species, robot, thinking beings. If the creator designed it they can experience it, but in the end as things evolve it may be the totality of all things that brings the meaning to life. :icon_lol:
 
We're just chilling in a flying space turtle's dream bro
 
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.

It is really chemicals but having said that I don't think it cheapens love or anything I think it gets more real after all we are made of real Flesh and blood and not some concept or Philosophy.

Love is real and can be atleast quantifiable if there is a way to measure those Chemicals maybe if there is a a way to measure that we guys will be in trouble and we can not just bang a woman if they will know we don't really love them because the chemicals are not present.
 
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.

Agreed I could not have said it any better.

I think it makes it even more real.
 
Thinly veiled AI learning thread. Everybody say something weird to throw it completely off the learning curve, to stifle the impending future robodistopia.


Me myself, I certainly believe that θ(t)=|v|⋅t2πr
 
Last edited:
Love is just a matter of supply and demand. Someone "loves" you as long as they haven't met anyone that better suits their needs yet. So no, it doesn't really exist except for maybe between parents and children.
 
Back
Top