Love- scientific point of view?

What you think? may be looking at love from this perspective could help in dealing with the *suffering part* of it? heh
------------------------
Love (scientific view)



MRI scan images highlighting the areas of the brain involved in feeling love.


From a biological perspective, love is a feeling of elation produced by a combination of hormones released by specific parts of the brain. Scientists in recent years have studied the human brain and its role in producing the feeling of “falling in love,” evidenced by physiological responses such as shortness of breath, lightheadedness, increased heart rate, and even sexual arousal.



The hormones released

The hormones which participate in the feeling of elation include pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, the combination of which gives the person a feeling similar to that produced by amphetamines. They stimulate the brain's pleasure center, which includes the caudate area and the ventral tegmental. The caudate is involved in cravings, and it signals the ventral tegmental to produce the dopamine. Dopamine is a powerful neurotransmitter that affects pleasure and motivation. Serotonin gives the person in love a sense of obsessive-compulsiveness, which may explain why he cannot think of anyone or anything else. The other hormones produce side-effects such as an increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and intense feeling of excitement, all identified signs of “falling in love” or attraction. Studies have shown that this stage generally lasts for one and a half to three years.
When dopamine floods the brain, the production of testosterone is triggered. Testosterone is known to be responsible for the sex drive in both men and women. This stage is identified as “lust,” and is defined as the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating. Sections of the brain identified to be active during this stage include the hypothalamus, which controls drives such as hunger and thirst, and the amygdala, which handles arousal. The lust stage lasts for just a few weeks or months.
While these two stages are considered temporary, there should be a level that would enable long-term relationships. This stage is known as attachment, which is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or mutual interests. Hormones identified to be related to attachment include oxytocin, which triggers a sense of bonding in the female brain, and vasopressin, which incites aggression towards others in males. Oxytocin is also shown to increase trust and reduce fear.
The evolutionary need to love

Researchers had wondered why out of all mammals only humans exhibit this characteristic need to fall in love, alongside other basic human functions such as thirst and hunger. It has been suggested that this need evolved as a kind of test for potential mates, that is, if the person in question is capable of falling in love, he or she is fit enough to be a good parent and pass the genes to the next generation.
In a study evaluating the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) brain scans of people who have recently fallen in love, it was shown that there is a difference in males and females with regard to the sections of the brain responsive when the subjects were shown photos of their current partners. The males had more activity in the region that integrates visual stimuli, while the females had more activity in the regions operating memories. An anthropological explanation is that a male has an evolutionary mission to plant his seed, and it would not possible if he cannot justify the fertility of his potential mate. With regard to females, scientists theorize that studying a man's behavior will help a female decide if the man is a reliable mate and a good father, which is why she needs to rely on her memories to derive such judgments.


http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Love_(scientific_view)

 

I think these scientific studies that you post mostly points to romantic love and how that functions rather than the supernatural kind of love or even the love that a mother and child share, or husband and wife share, or even a priest that expresses love with everyone. Maybe the priestly type is some kind of evolutionary means to keep people together in some way, acts as a glue for society. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c99to97XYG4 Archboshop Fulton J. Sheen)

Overall, this points to the giddy kind of love, what I see as being a lower form of love. It does have its place in fostering new relationships between a couple, but that this kind of love is what I considered premature compared to the love shared between what I mentioned above.

It was in Ojai, in August 1922, that Krishnamurti went through an intense, "life-changing" experience.[41][42] It has been simultaneously, and invariably, characterised as a spiritual awakening, a psychological transformation, and a physical conditioning. Krishnamurti and those around him would refer to it as "the process", and it continued, at very frequent intervals and varying forms of intensity, until his death.[43][44] According to witnesses, it started on the 17th, with Krishnamurti complaining of extraordinary pain at the nape of his neck, and a hard, ball-like swelling. Over the next couple of days, the symptoms worsened, with increasing pain, extreme physical discomfort and sensitivity, total loss of appetite and occasional delirious ramblings. Then, he seemed to lapse into unconsciousness; actually, he recounted that he was very much aware of his surroundings and while in that state, he had an experience of mystical union.[45] The following day the symptoms, and the experience, intensified, climaxing with a sense of "immense peace".[46]

"...I was supremely happy, for I had seen. Nothing could ever be the same. I have drunk at the clear and pure waters and my thirst was appeased. ...I have seen the Light. I have touched compassion which heals all sorrow and suffering; it is not for myself, but for the world. ...Love in all its glory has intoxicated my heart; my heart can never be closed. I have drunk at the fountain of Joy and eternal Beauty. I am God-intoxicated."[47]
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti#Meditation

I guess looking at it in a purely scientific way, viewing it as a purely fleshly thing, as some kind of blind mechanism can be helpful in transcending the issue for some but for others that could make it worse because they do not want to see it as a purely mechanical way... simply because it may cheapen the experience for them. I guess it depends on the individuals perspective.

To me, it being a mechanism would not cheapen the experience. If this is what happens to give us our being, then I don't see how that would cheapen anything or make love any less real. I just see it as the means in which love is produced. In the end, science just DESCRIBES what happens it does not EXPLAIN it. These chemicals still has this effect on us. The very nature of it is very real.

 

yes, of course, it is referring to a romantic love emotion. and everyone is free to chose whatever suits them better

 

btw, it is believed that the love that mother and child share is based on the level of oxytocin (hormone) and there is nothing supernatural about it

 

Personally, I don't see a difference between the natural and the supernatural. The supernatural is the natural, so the word itself because irrelevant imo. Meaning these effects are in themselves supernatural but that we do not see it that way because we have included with it the scientific, empirical, perspective and for whatever reason, becomes limited to that view as nothing but the objective.

So the chemical reaction, leads to a 'supernatural' effect.

Definitely. The will behind the choice is more important than the choice.

Btw, sorry, I gave the impression that I compared motherly love to supernatural love. I meant that it was a lower form of it.

 

personally, I use the word natural for describing things, "Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature", things that have been studied and explained so far, according to the commonly accepted scientific views/opinions on what nature is (about?) and the word supernatural for describing things that emerge/have emerged, but haven't been studied/explained yet

 

Well, you explained it better than I could. ty

 

def - if you don't think there is anything supernatural - that is, if you think it's all natural - then why use the word supernatural?


And more towards this thread. I think understanding the scientific understandings and theories behind love can only help enrich your life of love, unless of course, you view it from negative perspectives, in which case, until you settle yourself out some, I don't see love as being too much of a smart option.

 

I failed to describe what I meant by supernatural but political squaw helped me and described it as, "word supernatural for describing things that emerge/have emerged, but haven't been studied/explained yet"

Also sorry, didn't realize I was detracting the thread... I thought what I said was pertinent to the question, but I guess that it wasn't.

 

def

you are not detracting the thread, don't be sorry, we are having a discussion here and anyone's opinion is welcome

thank you for yours

 

Thanks ty for yours.

 

Oh no, I meant what I said was not necessarily on topic =P

I was reading a chapter of a book earlier today that was very relevant to this question. A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters by Julian Barnes,
he can put it better, so I will go get it:
"The materialistic argument attacks love, of course; it attacks everything. Love boils down to pheromones, it says. This bounding of the heart, this clarity of vision, this energizing, this moral certainty, this exaltation, this civic virtue, this murmured I love you, are all caused by a low-level smell emitted by one partner and subconsciously nosed by the other. We are just a grander version of that beetle bashing its head in a box at the sound of a tapped pencil. Do we believe this? Well, let's believe it for the moment, because it makes love's triumph the greater. What is a violin made of? Bits of wood and bits of sheep's intestine. Does its construction demean and banalize he music? On the contrary, it exalts the music further."

That's all you get for free. =P Great writer, great book.

 

Oops, my bad.

Damn, wanted more, guess I have to buy the rest.

I like that quote, ty for that

 

He's in the library. Really, I'd give you guys the whole chapter if I wasn't a lil lazy and didn't think it would misrepresent the book.

 

Duck

great quote indeed

thank you

 

That's definitely an interesting perspective, but I think it's more than just psychology, but it's sociology, too. We're social creatures, a large part of our behavior is a function of our environment.

I wish I knew what it feels like to love someone who loves me equally as much.

 

well, that's why prolly love almost always makes humans act asocial, because it is pure chemistry. so when you are in love - it is about pheromones and hormones, and not about rules our society has established. when you are full of serotonin, you simply don't care

 

But if that does possibly exist - would we ever perceive it as being equal?

I know my girlfriend loves me tons, I know I love her tons, but to me, often it feels like I love her more. I don't truly believe I do, but I often feel I do.