Poll: Why we feel love? Evolution? or God?
God
Evolution
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Love.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2011, 09:30 AM
RE: Love.
Cruel or not it works. In an evolutionary model the after effects of a better procreative action are unimportant, unless the impact on future generations lowers procreativity.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 09:47 AM
RE: Love.
Evolution was never thought of as kind. Why does it have to be? What would that purpose serve?

If we didn't have that feeling, perhaps we'd all kill eachother like a serial killer who lacks empathy, then where would we be? Dead, with no one to mourn us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 10:17 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2011 10:31 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: Love.
(31-08-2011 09:28 AM)zoyelque Wrote:  I agree with you,Evolution is amazing,But why do we experience this Great pain when we lose someone we love?I mean if it takes the kind of pain that can drive people insane why nature keep this way of securing our survival ,Don't you think is a lilte bit Cruel?
Nature doesn't know kindness from cruelty. Nature can't care about anything. Only living things can and do.
Everything from a mouse, or robin (and, trust me, these are not the Einsteins of aviandom!) upward experiences grief and loss. Because love is an investment of self: when we choose to entangle our lives with another being - any sex, any species, any relationship - we become to some degree dependent on them for our happiness. The greater the degree of dependence, the more happiness their departure takes out of our life. Therefore, grief can be intense and protracted; it may take considerable time and effort to replace that source of happiness; some unique aspects of each relationship can't be duplicated and will always be missed. But also, whatever strength, skill, understanding, trust and self-esteem you developed during that relationship, you get to keep.
The degree of emotional dependence that can drive a person insane was probably a result of some pre-existing condition - perhaps inadequate or unbalanced relationships; not uncommon in an artificial human environment and social structure.
This can happen to other species, notably dogs, but i suspect that, too, is the result of human tampering, rather than evolution.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peterkin's post
31-08-2011, 11:03 AM
RE: Love.
There is no "cruel" when it comes to nature. It takes conciousness to feel emotion. What we see as cruel is a very effective evolutionary trait that helps maintain a strong sense of continuing our genetic line. If we felt no sense of loss when we lost someone we love (and I say "we" as in all living things to some degree) then there would be no motivation to protect them if there is risk to ourselves. This is what keeps a "loving" animal going evolutionarily speaking. "It is better to risk my own neck for my endangered mate/offspring/packmate and increase our chances of survival by having the both of us for defense, rather than flee, and decrease the chances of said mate/offspring/packmates survival." What follows is, "I miss my lost mate, and feel an internal pain, and so I want to avoid this happening again. Therefore I shal continue to defend the ones I love to protect myself from suffering"

Again, it's all about survival of a species, not an individual. We evolve to survive as a species, because if we only evolved to survive as individuals, we may live longer, but we'd quickly become extinct because we wouldn't risk the dangers of propegating. That is just simple math.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 11:13 AM
RE: Love.
(31-08-2011 02:17 AM)zoyelque Wrote:  Im an atheist too,but the one thing that i don't see in nature that i see on us is Love.that confuses me
If there is a God then there is nothing surprising about the fact that we love. We were created in his image and one of his attributes is love.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 11:48 AM
RE: Love.
(31-08-2011 11:13 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(31-08-2011 02:17 AM)zoyelque Wrote:  Im an atheist too,but the one thing that i don't see in nature that i see on us is Love.that confuses me
If there is a God then there is nothing surprising about the fact that we love. We were created in his image and one of his attributes is love.

And if there isn't a god, then there is also nothing suprising about the fact that we feel love, as has been well explained throughout the thread. Difference is, evolution as an explination of love is logical, and makes perfect sense, whereas god as an explination of loves requires us to believe beyond logic and an understanding of the world around us. God creating love is just another example of god filling in a gap, and in this instance, the gap doesn't even exist.

If I say, "2 plus 2 equals four because I heard it somewhere" or "2 plus 2 equals four because the laws of mathimatical logic say so" then explain that logic, which would you give more credit to? 2+2=4. We can all agree on that, but it's the explination that matters. So do you believe we feel love because it can be explained by logic or by the bible? You see, just because logic and science are...well...logic and science, doesn't make them any less extraordinary, beautiful, or awe inspiring. There seems to be a tendancy to think of science as cold, hard, and unfeeling. It's not. It's amazing and wonderful! Love is a product of evolution. I mean wow! Evolution sure is freakin awesome!!!

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 11:52 AM
RE: Love.
(31-08-2011 11:03 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  There is no "cruel" when it comes to nature. It takes conciousness to feel emotion. What we see as cruel is a very effective evolutionary trait that helps maintain a strong sense of continuing our genetic line. If we felt no sense of loss when we lost someone we love (and I say "we" as in all living things to some degree) then there would be no motivation to protect them if there is risk to ourselves. This is what keeps a "loving" animal going evolutionarily speaking. "It is better to risk my own neck for my endangered mate/offspring/packmate and increase our chances of survival by having the both of us for defense, rather than flee, and decrease the chances of said mate/offspring/packmates survival." What follows is, "I miss my lost mate, and feel an internal pain, and so I want to avoid this happening again. Therefore I shal continue to defend the ones I love to protect myself from suffering"

Again, it's all about survival of a species, not an individual. We evolve to survive as a species, because if we only evolved to survive as individuals, we may live longer, but we'd quickly become extinct because we wouldn't risk the dangers of propegating. That is just simple math.

That consiousness and nature separation that you mention,It means that all living things have consiousness but of course nature don't( a stone don't have one,apparently), From Where does it comes that consiousness part? does it come from nature too? was it there at the beggining of the Universe? or does it evolved to consiousness over time? Does even microscopical life have consiousness? When these two forces collide?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 12:17 PM
RE: Love.
I voted "Evolution" due to the lack of a proper definition for the concept "God"

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2011, 12:23 PM
RE: Love.
I think I would use the term cosciousness to define life. A rock has no consciousness, a bird does. Neither define nature, but they are both a part of it.
Some of what you are asking, is not only beyond my knowledge, it's beyond humankinds. The choice you need to make is: do you accept that there's things you just don't know, or are you going to make up an answer?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
03-09-2011, 06:52 AM
RE: Love.
The only reason evolutionary I can initially deem for love is to keep families bound together for the higher chance of birthing success. Relating that to why Humans I know I recently read (not sure from where, might of been from Dawkins) that a likely reason for parental bonding is tied to hominids becoming bipedal; that being attributed to that since the female was no longer able to carry a child upon her back as our brothern primates will do but instead human females would need to use of her arms to hold a child making her greatly vulnerable which required a companion for protection of the mother and child.

Apart from that I really don't believe what we call love is purely a human concept. It isn't greatly common but long term mating relationships are bred into some other animals. Wolves have a very strong connection to what could be called love as they mate for life and it's been noted seldom in cases that when the a mate dies the partner may refuse to go on eating and starve oneself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: