quote:Scientists are finding that, after all, love really is down to a chemical addiction between people
OVER the course of history it has been artists, poets and playwrights who have made the greatest progress in humanity's understanding of love. Romance has seemed as inexplicable as the beauty of a rainbow. But these days scientists are challenging that notion, and they have rather a lot to say about how and why people love each other.
Is this useful? The scientists think so. For a start, understanding the neurochemical pathways that regulate social attachments may help to deal with defects in people's ability to form relationships. All relationships, whether they are those of parents with their children, spouses with their partners, or workers with their colleagues, rely on an ability to create and maintain social ties. Defects can be disabling, and become apparent as disorders such as autism and schizophrenia—and, indeed, as the serious depression that can result from rejection in love. Research is also shedding light on some of the more extreme forms of sexual behaviour. And, controversially, some utopian fringe groups see such work as the doorway to a future where love is guaranteed because it will be provided chemically, or even genetically engineered from conception.
More of this if you bother to click on the above link.
posted
There's certainly a physical element to every relationship, there's no denying that. I for one like to believe that there's more than that, though, and the physical component is just that... one part of the whole.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, gee, if you remove all that is experimentally unverifiable from something, of course you are left with are the raw materials. It amazes me how stupid "scientists" can be sometimes.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure that's true about infatuation and chemistry. The trick is being able to create it again and again without having to resort to more and stronger hits from other partners. Maybe it's really addiction that is an analogy to love and not the other way around.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TAK, I think you are familiar with the principle of Occam's razor : "plurality should not be posited without necessity." By use of this principle, if scientists would be able to provoke/inhibit "love" with the help of chemical agents then there's no need for the "experimentally unverifiable" in order to explain love.
Also, because you think that not all things can have a scientific explanation, should we all stop searching for the truth in a scientific way ? Remember, scientists know that their "answers" may be wrong, but they choose to consider them true unless proven otherwise. People act on things they consider true. If, when proven wrong, they still act on the same basis, THEN they are stupid - or, to say it better, too constrained by their beliefs in order to see the "new truth".
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Love's "flavors" (another extract from the article):
quote: Scanning the brains of people in love is also helping to refine science's grasp of love's various forms. Helen Fisher, a researcher at Rutgers University, and the author of a new book on love, suggests it comes in three flavours: lust, romantic love and long-term attachment. There is some overlap but, in essence, these are separate phenomena, with their own emotional and motivational systems, and accompanying chemicals. These systems have evolved to enable, respectively, mating, pair-bonding and parenting.
The interesting part is that:
quote: Because they are independent, these three systems can work simultaneously—with dangerous results. As Dr Fisher explains, “you can feel deep attachment for a long-term spouse, while you feel romantic love for someone else, while you feel the sex drive in situations unrelated to either partner.”
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
