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
05-09-2011, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2011 11:37 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: Love.
(31-08-2011 11:52 AM)zoyelque Wrote:  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?

You need to straighten out a few concepts.
Nature isn't an entity that can be conscious or unconscious: nature is just a collective term for a set of laws, interactions and processes that we have identified in our environment. Everything is in nature, of nature and from nature.

Consciousness is an attribute of living organisms. We know something - though not very much yet - about the consciousness of high level organisms like ourselves, and only guess about the ones with which we are unable to communicate.

Consciousness can't have been at the beginning of the universe, because that would be god, or something like it, and all consciousness would be the same - complicated and self-contradictory, if human consciousness is the model - which would serve earthworms and whales very poorly.

What forces collide?

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
05-09-2011, 02:25 PM
RE: Love.
I think we need to identify to ourselves what love is and what it entails.........love can be proven to the fact that we can all talk about it and empathise to a degree and certain levels of what it is.......outside of our thoughts and feelings though love can not be proved as existing at all (in the physical) other than what we deem it to be.......and that is not universal.

It is interesting though how the Heart is attributed to love.........out of all the bodily organs why this one??? Yes I can see how the feeling of love affects us "heart missing a beat"......."having a heavy heart" etc etc......but we now know there is more to this re-action like adrenaline levels, emotional/mental state, chemical balances.......and the question needs to be raised it may be our hearts that feel love........but can feelings from the heart alone be attributed to this love or does it go deeper on a physical scale???

The heart is something that interests me and there is evidence to suggest that our hearts give off a larger magnetic field then our heads do........ive been looking for the link and as soon as I find it I will share it.

Another interesting aspect is that love can be taught.........like many other things. I was lucky enough to be brought up in a loving enviroment.......so I recognise love and because I have been shown ways of giving it.......this gives me freedom to express it in those ways as well.

However some people have not been so lucky to have had the upbringing I have had.......some peoples lifes have been harsh and they know not what love is......so how can you give love if you dont know what it is properly???

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2011, 02:35 PM
 
RE: Love.
(05-09-2011 02:25 PM)bemore Wrote:  I was lucky enough to be brought up in a loving enviroment.......so I recognise love and because I have been shown ways of giving it.......this gives me freedom to express it in those ways as well.

bemore, I remember that you wrote, in another thread: "I had been taught to hate."

How did you resolve this conflict?

Just curious.
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2011, 03:09 PM
RE: Love.
(05-09-2011 02:35 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(05-09-2011 02:25 PM)bemore Wrote:  I was lucky enough to be brought up in a loving enviroment.......so I recognise love and because I have been shown ways of giving it.......this gives me freedom to express it in those ways as well.

bemore, I remember that you wrote, in another thread: "I had been taught to hate."

How did you resolve this conflict?

Just curious.

TBH Zatamon the conflict is still ongoing.

I suppose one way that I try to resolve it is by doing the opposite of it.......to try to not hurt others in the ways that I have been hurt.

I suppose only time and hindsight will say wether I am succesfull or not ha ha.

Being honest again though I kinda think it will be with me forever.......how can I learn otherwise I wonder, without having something to compare it too??? As soon as I forget then I may take it for granted like I once did before.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 09:10 PM
RE: Love.
(05-09-2011 11:34 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  
(31-08-2011 11:52 AM)zoyelque Wrote:  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?

You need to straighten out a few concepts.
Nature isn't an entity that can be conscious or unconscious: nature is just a collective term for a set of laws, interactions and processes that we have identified in our environment. Everything is in nature, of nature and from nature.

Consciousness is an attribute of living organisms. We know something - though not very much yet - about the consciousness of high level organisms like ourselves, and only guess about the ones with which we are unable to communicate.

Consciousness can't have been at the beginning of the universe, because that would be god, or something like it, and all consciousness would be the same - complicated and self-contradictory, if human consciousness is the model - which would serve earthworms and whales very poorly.

What forces collide?

The forces i mention are nature(Wich include us living things) and consciousness,where the two meet? ,of course we all agree consciousness do exist,i really think maybe is a possibility that conciousness do evolve with all living things,you know its gotta come somewhere and obviosly if it comes from evolution is pretty reasonable that haves the ability to evolve.I focus a lot in consciousnes (Especialy in human but im interested in all tipes) because without that we wouldn't even would have the ability to believe in God,and because is the responsable for all that (Mistical) believe.I wanna know where do it come from and how it works.And of course if it have no purpose at all other than survival,Sorry im on it very passionately.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2011, 08:43 AM
RE: Love.
Quote: zoyelque:
I wanna know where do it [consciousness] come from and how it works.And of course if it have no purpose at all other than survival,Sorry im on it very passionately.

We'd all like to know that. From observation:
No inanimate matter - rocks, water, sand etc. - exhibits signs of consciousness or response to stimuli.
No plant life exhibits signs of consciousness - though all unicelluar and primitive multicellular organisms and plants respond in a physical way to physical stimuli.
Complex multicellular organisms begin to exhibit signs of consciousness at the level where they have an identifiable brain. By which i mean, responses to physical stimuli that are not automatic or entirely predictable - making a choice between at least two alternatives. You can't predict, for example, which way a threatened frog will jump, or whether a mouse will attempt to run, hide or fight.
Once you get up to mammalia, prediction becomes quite difficult unless you've studied the species closely: there are far too many factors and variables. And the social apes have intertwined rules of behaviour, etiquette, social and familial relationships, all of which complicate their range of choices in any given situation.

All of this serves survival, of course. It evolved precisely - and only - because the animals that had it survived, and the animals that lacked it, or had less of it, didn't.
Consciousness - the ability to feel emotions, as well as think thoughts, and the combination of emotion and thought to produce choices - still serves to promote the survival of genetic lineage.
Why should anything have a purpose other than survival?
I'm not sure it doesn't, though. Seems to me, humans and a few other species, contain some contradictions and embellishments that are difficult to explain in survival terms. Maybe it's just leftover stray luggage? things that nature tried out in its on-going DNA experimentation that didn't add anything new to survival, but didn't subtract anything, either: not worth refining or deleting.

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
23-09-2011, 07:34 AM
RE: Love.
[Maybe it's just leftover stray luggage? things that nature tried out in its on-going DNA experimentation that didn't add anything new to survival, but didn't subtract anything, either: not worth refining or deleting.


[/quote]

But how it is nature tried things without any consciousnes? Are those unconscious desicion making? that higher concsience is not what humans call god?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2011, 09:42 AM
RE: Love.
(23-09-2011 07:34 AM)zoyelque Wrote:  
Quote:Maybe it's just leftover stray luggage? things that nature tried out in its on-going DNA experimentation that didn't add anything new to survival, but didn't subtract anything, either: not worth refining or deleting

But how it is nature tried things without any consciousnes? Are those unconscious desicion making? that higher concsience is not what humans call god?

I see the problem and that i'm guilty of confusing the issue. I was using a standard metaphor of natural selection for the the process of evolution. It isn't really selection, as in some conscious entity choosing among available options; it's more like an immense billiard table with balls colliding and re-colliding; many fall into the pockets and are lost, some stay on the surface. It's just deaf/blind/dumb physics and chemistry, but it happens on a scale so vast, over a time-period so long that it's very difficult for us to comprehend. We often resort to word-pictures in order to imagine it. Besides, humans have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize everything; to project our own personality onto the world around us. As a story-teller, i do it more than most. Sorry!
Because we have consciousness, we imagine a higher consciousness. Some call it god and posit that "higher" means the same as "boss"; appoint themselves spokesmen and tell us what the boss wants.
It's not higher - it's just bigger. We are inside it, because we are part of the process.
It's not aware, has no purpose or volition or preference. Our ego wants to put us at the pinnacle of evolution (or creation), but that's entirely inaccurate: we are merely one of millions of products of the process - so far.
Evolution is never finished; doesn't end with us. Even if we end it for this planet, all the other life-supporting planets will go right on producing billions and billions of.... whatever.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2011, 11:23 AM
RE: Love.
There is no trajectory in evolution. Evolution is the result of selection pressures that are exhibited by numerous natural factors. Some are inanimate factors like climate, and others are biological, such as sexual selection and predation. Natural selection and sexual selection is a process where natural animate and inanimate forces and pressures cause changes in genetic frequencies and morphotypes. A species does not evolve a particular trait on purpose, but instead changes in the frequency or combinations of genes and cell configurations can lead to a new characteristic that may provide a positive benefit for survival.

An example would be the eye. The eye started off as nothing more than photosensitive cells on the surface of the skin. The organism that first developed these cells did not do so on purpose, but unconsciously used them to aid in survival. Survival = more opportunities to breed and pass on your traits. 2 organisms with these photosensitive cells produces offspring with them, and so on and so forth until they breed themselves more and more efficient versions of the photosensitive cells. Add in millions of years of this and something that more closely resembles the eye begins to develop. It is not a conscious decision to breed better and better eyes, but is an advantage at surviving and reproducing, so they are the ones most likely to reproduce.

We can take it to the extreme and use artificial selection as an example in dogs. If I want to breed a dog that has a better sense of smell and is built lower to the ground for easier tracking of small animals, I will select my first generation of parents based on these traits. I will pick the ones who are stockier and are better at tracking. I force them to mate, and I then start my second round of selective breeding with the offspring, and so on and so forth until...tah dah...Bloodhounds. This is why they exist. The same thing could be applied to love. It is not a conscious decision to love, but instead it contributes an advantage for survival and reproduction. As a trait, it itself is perpetuated in the offspring who continue to perpetuate it in the population when they breed.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
28-09-2011, 12:00 AM
RE: Love.
I agree with many here - love clearly exists in creatures other than us smelly bipeds.

Some thoughts on consciousness, instinct, chemicals, & love: I think humans get way too uppity about being conscious. There is quite a range of that, even in humans. You can point to great thinkers, & you can point to backwoods, hovel dwelling savages, who would die if not for the level of basic animal cunning still retained in their shriveled cerebellums. And you can look into the eyes of certain animals, & watch their behaviors, & find yourself thinking you see something there, & their actions seem easy to name in human terms.

Meanwhile, chemicals run our lives. Someone said they wanted a real example of animals showing love, not like a tiger mom protecting her cubs. But those who study brain science say parental love, partner love, bonding - all of these things are the result of complex chemical actions in our brains & bodies. And as to the comment on - why do we feel pain when someone we love is gone, the answer is that we become physically addicted to the chemicals of love, & to have them pulled away is a physical & emotional withdrawal. Its that way with teens, too, & their intense relationships.

It has worked out that having these strong bonds increases our chances of surviving. So we have them. These same chemical actions happen in other animals, but we enrobe it in our idea of being conscious. But really, if your deepest emotions are the outward manifestation of chemical domino effects, where do you find the line that lest you say - over here it's "real" emotion, & for that animal, its' just instinct? Isn't it instinct for us also? A woman with a new baby has tons of weird chemical stuff going on in her system, as does her mate, probably because of different scents she's sending out. The fact of becoming a parent causes these chemical changes in us, & we react by wanting very much to protect our young. We call it love, but if you were able to inject something & counteract those chemical changes, you wouldn't be feeling that love. So how & where is the line between us & less "developed" creatures? And bear in mind pretty much everything has been evolving for a long time, so our idea of developed is kind of an artificial construct in which we elevate the traits we value.

Finally, not every trait has to be useful for evolution. It can be ancillary & simply non-harmful. If you sell me a car that runs & it has a sunroof I never wanted & will never use, I don't really care, as long as the car runs.

Every time you say you don't believe, Jesus rips the wings off a fairy. - SkepticalParenting.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: