Who can prove love is more than some chemical reactions?

Answer 1

The proof, if any such proof is actually needed, will not be limited to love, but will apply to the qualitative nature of experience in general. If any aspect of human experience is in some sense beyond the sum of our physical processes, then love (since it is an experience) is beyond them as well. I think the key will be in fully understanding that all of our thoughts and beliefs about the physical basis of experience are, themselves, experiences. So if I were to identify all of the biochemical reactions involved in constituting the feeling of love, my understanding of these chemical reactions would, themselves, be based on my experiences of knowing, believing, understanding, and so on. Or to put it another way, there is something that it is like for me to believe that carbon dioxide consists of a carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms. It FEELS like something for me to believe this, and it is based on this FEELING that I am able to distinguish this belief from all other beliefs that I might have, such as my belief that 2+2=4, or my belief that mixing red and blue makes purple. I can distinguish between two beliefs only because each belief is an EXPERIENCE, and every experience MUST in some way FEEL different than every other experience, since otherwise I would have no way of knowing that there are two experiences, rather than just one. It FEELS different to distinguish one abstract thought from another. If we can know anything for certain, then we can only know it if we know what it FEELS like to know something, and to feel sure of our knowledge.

In other words, ALL knowledge, no matter how scientific, logical, or abstract is rooted in what it FEELS like to experience life, and what it feels like to distinguish one belief from another. In light of this, what does it mean when a person claims that all experience can be reduced to biochemical processes or the motions of atoms, or whatever? All of our beliefs about atoms and molecules reduce to our experiences of knowing about atoms and molecules. We want to say that theses things exist independently of our experiences, but even this belief is essentially an experience.

So the bottom line is this: The deeper question is whether we can ever prove that anything exists that is completely independent of all experience, and that this stuff – atoms, or whatever - somehow constitutes our experience. What could that even mean? What sense can we really make of the idea that something independent of experience somehow constitutes our experience? If we can know anything at all, then we know love directly as our experience of love. We know love as our experience of loving. It takes an intuitive leap of faith to go on and further claim that somehow love is "really" something other than the experience of love – that it is "really" just a bunch of biochemical reactions, or motions of atoms, or whatever. Thus the burden of proof is NOT on those who talk of love as the experience of love, but rather, the burden of proof is upon those who talk of love as "really" being made of something completely different.

Answer 2

Actually, the thing we call 'soul' is not really seperated from the body, the way we think it is. Soul may be something special or immortal but it doesnt mean that it has no connection with the body. If there is an illness in an organ, we feel pain. So this pain is caused by a physical problem but the feeling tortures the soul, too. We 'feel' bad! The reactions inside the body must have some corresponding effects on the thing we call soul. But it is also the case that the feelings we have, must have some corresponding effects in the body.
Now, regarding love.. The chemical reactions start 'after' we meet someone, right? It is not the case that we suddenly feel love and than out to find someone to reflect the feeling. We first have someone, which we want to be together with (as you probably know, the roots of love are sexual attraction) and than this 'attraction' we feel, causes a corresponding reaction in the body and it starts to produce some chemicals and hormones. It is very normal because love is a combination of a lot of feelings that the body is normally not used to feel. However, this fact doesnt lead to the conclusion that love is 'only' some chemical reactions. Love causes chemical reactions but it is more than that!

Answer 3

You got eroticohio to answer :)


The only experiment I could hastily imagine would take couples who define themselves 'in love', monitor their brain, and then place the equivalent amount of euphoria-producing drug or chocolate in an adjacent room. They will pick their lover over the drug, for obvious reasons. So you have to bias the drug -- it produces more 'love' than actual love.

Mice will always pick the drug it seems.

Humans are kind of complex, I don't think you could reduce all the linguistic and phenomenal interchange that happens between lovers to a drug. If you can, you've basically designed the perfect drug...

Hmm

Look mental activity requires chemical reactions, whatever it is.
Without that chemistry happening there would be no thought, no love. You're asking how consciousness is more than chemistry...

Here: consider multiple realizeability.
If your brain chemistry could be altered such that every carbon atom was replaced by silicon, etc -- you can fill in the blanks. Would you choose a brain that experiences 'love' or a brain that does not. You could do it with an amazingly complex machine as well. The chemistry doesn't matter if you can have the experience of 'love' with varying functional arrangmenets.

Which begs the question, but whatever. I'm out of time.

Answer 4

When you have children and look into your newborns face and love, you will know it is not a chemical reaction. When that same adorable little baby is being fed and sprews peas all over you and you love, you will find it is not a chemical reaction. When your children disgrace you and you still love, you will know it is not a chemical reaction. When someone you love wounds you to the core and you still love, you will know it is not a chemical reaction. When you ache because you have to leave the ones you love you will know from within your soul all of the wonderous experiences you have had of love, in your life, had nothing to do with chemcial reactions.

Answer 5

No one. At the biocellular level, every aspect of life is "chemical reactions." If love is, so is hate, hunger, bad breath, and the desire to play video games.

Answer 6

Jesus Christ, Messiah, the 5th Buddha, Krishna, or the Imam Mahdi. Maitreya, the international instructor, or with the aid of despite call you will call the chosen one or everyone else who has "Christ understanding" loves not in basic terms Christians, yet particularly particularly everyone. For they are love and understand the divinity in all. it somewhat is via the fact we don't understand that we positioned labels on human beings. Love is chemical, it is likewise emotional and the purpose of all life on earth. the fantastic lesson. there isn't one emotion that can not be healed with unconditional love. Many cancers and different illnesses would be prevented all of it of us had unconditional love.

Answer 7

I don't have any chemicals in my body...but perhaps you do. What you on?

Answer 8

psychologytoday.com can prove it