Can love be scientifically proved? - Page 3 - The Orange Room

Dalzi

A new scientific study (internal sourses) is examining how humans react to newly planted organs. A recent examination has shown that a newly planted heart in a patient has been playing a vital role in changing what that patient likes and hates. So further examination on the study will be conducted and our scientific theory that "emotions" and "feelings" are only restricted to the "brain" could prove wrong

. It is argued that it could be that the brain "trains" other organs (especially the heart) to become "more independent" when it comes to feelings.

I guess we just have to wait for awhile to see what they're gonna come up with

.

DaManInChrist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Materialist

You should know this by yourself.....

When you press "A" in the keyboard, does the computer display the same thing as you press "B" ? Of course No, because when you press "A" you are sending different data to the computer than pressing "B"

That's because a human designed the keyboard to be that way. Who designed me to be who I am?

Quote:

When you see "a beautiful young women" you are sending different data to your brain than seeing "an old women"

What makes me send different data to my brain for each scene?

Quote:

However, your reaction may vary between you and another person because you have different genetics, life experience, moods and other things.

And so ... God's grace is totally out of the picture according to Materialist ...

Quote:

But both are the result of material interactions in our brain

I can't help you here. We've discussed something like this before in another thread, and you yourself admitted that you don't know how exactly the brain works. There's still lots of stuff that need to be learnt about the brain. So let's just wait and see whether or not you are right.

Quote:

I'm as a person, I exist.

Are you sure? Maybe you're just a dream ... an illusion ... I don't know ...

Omeros

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalzi

A new scientific study (internal sourses) is examining how humans react to newly planted organs. A recent examination has shown that a newly planted heart in a patient has been playing a vital role in changing what that patient likes and hates. So further examination on the study will be conducted and our scientific theory that "emotions" and "feelings" are only restricted to the "brain" could prove wrong

. It is argued that it could be that the brain "trains" other organs (especially the heart) to become "more independent" when it comes to feelings.

I guess we just have to wait for awhile to see what they're gonna come up with

.

abel ma ykhalso ill tell u that its true , il y a en effet genre de maladie " tacci cardie" qui est en relation directe avec les emotions par exemple les forte emotion peuvent mener a la mort pour cela on donne au patient du xanax ou meme magnes b6 selon l'age pour que cette personne ne meurt pas
feelings , les sentiments ne sont pas de l'interieur vers l'exterieur et meme pas de l'exterieur vers l'interieur c'est une chaine par exemple :
l'amour peut etre continuel et peut ne pas l'etre comment ?
comme nous changeons avec le temps et comme l'amour est base sur le " moi" il peut change meme disparaitre . on change de valeur de pense parsuite l'amour change en revanche autrui reste le meme dans ce cas le sentiment est de l'interieur vers l'exterieur
or il y a un autre cas ou cest de l'exterieur vers l'interieur c'est s'quon nomme coud de foudre se genre d'amour la dure dure tres longtemps puisuqe la personalite la facon dont autrui parle de pense etc nous a pousse a l'aime et voila l'amour et voila les sentiment qui se traduit et stimule les neurone dans se cas le stimulant c'est autrui

Rexus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Scientific_views

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, hunger or thirst. Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy.

Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side-effects such as an increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.


Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding which promotes relationships that last for many years, and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin than short-term relationships have.

In 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year. Specifically, four neurotrophin levels, i.e. NGF, BDNF, NT-3, and NT-4, of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love were compared with levels in a control group who were either single or already engaged in a long-term relationship. The results showed that NGF levels were significantly higher in the subjects in love than as compared to either of the control groups

Omeros

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Scientific_views

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, hunger or thirst. Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy.

Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side-effects such as an increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.


Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding which promotes relationships that last for many years, and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin than short-term relationships have.

In 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year. Specifically, four neurotrophin levels, i.e. NGF, BDNF, NT-3, and NT-4, of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love were compared with levels in a control group who were either single or already engaged in a long-term relationship. The results showed that NGF levels were significantly higher in the subjects in love than as compared to either of the control groups

gr8 explanation BUT this post is describing the reaction .i didn't say that there is no reaction . for sure there is , but its doesn't relate the fact that ur in love and the love itself.
ya3ne , the chemical reactions doesn't explain the fact that love is related 2 science . for ex: if u have cholesterol it doesn't mean that u eat much fat the fact that u have cholesterol could have another explanation like u are nervous person and ur bad mood cause the sickness .

Abu Ruman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claudia

May I ask you if you ever fall in love? How can "love" be scientific proved? It can't. The same happens with Faith. Faith is a Gift, a grace from God, you can't explain it.
I can't explain it better than saying that Faith is the greatest gift someone can have. I compare it to love. Until you feel it, you don't know how strong it can be.

To me God's presence is an evidence in my life, that's why I don't need scientific proofs.

The "problem" with God is that when He is present in your life, you have Duties and moral Responsibilities. Differently from religion, Darwinism justifies every mistake, personal or collective.

And who says love is real?

Darwinism - like any real science - is not meant to justify anything. Justifying involves itself with 'good' and 'bad', that is not the role of science. What science does is simply explain to us how something happens; it states it as it is, not if its 'bad' or 'good.'

It just translates reality, how it is. Period.

coralie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claudia

May I ask you if you ever fall in love? How can "love" be scientific proved?

To me God's presence is an evidence in my life, that's why I don't need scientific proofs.

The "problem" with God is that when He is present in your life, you have Duties and moral Responsibilities. Differently from religion, Darwinism justifies every mistake, personal or collective.

why do we need scientific proof to very thing pure and sublime in our lives??? ... just love and be happy . experience Love in the labortory of your soul not in the human scientific mind it will lose its essence .

Claudia my dear friend when God is in my life i dont have duties i do things with happyness and freedom and love ... Moral become a fact a normal attitude that i reflect on others around me not a responsability .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Materialist

Emotions such as love, fear, hunger........ are physical reactions

Emotions can be easily explained by science. For example, when a man see a beautiful naked women, the image comes to his eye and the signals moves throw his neurons then it makes stimulation in his brain, and this stimulation will make a reaction. This reaction is called "Emotion". Another example, When your stomach is empty your brain releases chemicals that make stimulation in your brain and you would feel hungry..... All other types of emotions can be explained in this materialistic way.

this is not LOVE this is purely and simply a physical attraction ... an instinct ...animals do the same ... Love is not something common in animal world is it ??? emotions /feelings is what differenciate us from animals ... here lays all the difference . Love has nothing to do with brain or any chemical reactions or it will be called H2O or CO2 any other chemical sign .

Omeros · 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

And who says love is real?

Darwinism - like any real science - is not meant to justify anything. Justifying involves itself with 'good' and 'bad', that is not the role of science. What science does is simply explain to us how something happens; it states it as it is, not if its 'bad' or 'good.'

It just translates reality, how it is. Period.

لا يمكن للخير وللشر ان يثبت نفسه فالانسان يقول ان ذا خير او ذا شر وكل يحدد شرانية الامور وخيرها من خلال قيمه ووجهة نظره . ومن المنطقي جدا ما سبق وقلته ان العلوم لا تضع الا تفاصيل الحدث ولكن لا يمكنها ان تحدد خير وشر الحدث فعلى سبيل المثال النسبية في الرياضيات والفيزياء كان ربما اهم ما اكتشف الا وان العلم لم يحدد ان كان شرا او خيرا اليوم هذا الاكتشاف ادى الى اختراع القنبلة الذرية واسلحة الدمار الشامل واعتقد هي شر لان الهدف منها هو القتل
هذا الامر يتطابق مع الحب لا يمكن ان نفسر مشاعر الامومة مثلا والقول انها تنتج هورمون او غيره المهم من كل ذا النتيجة والواقع ان تلك الام تضحي بحياتها من اجل طفلتها اقله انا

Omeros

اريد ان اشير : ربما اساس الحب ليس علمي !! ربما هو يثير ما هو علمي في الانسان الا انه يمكن اثباته علميا ( من خلال علم النفس الذي هو علم)
علم النفس يحدد الحب بثلالث مراحل : عنصر المفاجئة، التساؤلات والخوف ، والثبات

عنصر المفاجئة سببه الاخر الذي يصدمنا دائما بما هو جديد فان انت احببت لا يمكن ان تسام لانك ان انت احببت فستتفاجئ دائما اي ان الحب يتجدد تلقائيا
لكن هذا العنصر يولد ما يعرف بشعور الخوف او عدم الامان ....من فقدان من نحب فنطرح تساؤلات وتساؤلات الى ما لا نهاية ...اين انا من حياتك .. اين انت من حياتي ... هل سنبقى هكذا ..هل ستذهب مع غيري .. هل هل هل ....
هذه التساؤلات تضئ الايام عليها كما عليها تجيب ....ومع مضي الايام ......يظهر الالتزام ...فالايام تحدد اكثر فاكثر جدية الارتباط جدية العلاقة واستمراريتها

اذا الحب يثبت انه موجود علميا ولكن هل هذا يعني ان اساسه علمي؟
هل يعني ...انه حدث علمي زائل ؟
اسئلة تطرح نفسها وهذه الاسئلة ايضا دليل محبة محبة الاكتشاف فهل الاكتشافات توقفت ؟ اذا الحب لا يتوقف ...
philay ( amour) sophya ( de la raison ) = philosophie