kandiikane:

I would like you to give me the research  or evidence you found that says LOVE does not exist. .Please, I am waiting. .

Go to this thread and read the whole 10 pages if you want>>>https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-710247.0.html
FYI that thread is called 'Love does not exist'.

Claremont why is it so important for things to be scientifically proven. Do you know that there are many things that can't be scientifically proven, yet are completely rational and logical; science itself is one!!lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco&feature=player_embedded#at=99



Start playing at 1:13

Full_lips:

Claremont why is it so important for things to be scientifically proven. Do you know that there are many things that can't be scientifically proven, yet are completely rational and logical; science itself is one!!lol

You of all people should know better since you are a Psychology Major. Science is everything, and everything is science; what science cannot prove, does not exist. Anyone who has clear incontrovertible proof that "love" exists should be capable of presenting it in a clear and logical manner, the absence of such lends credence to the non-existence theory.

Hum, there are some things science can't explain. For example, the etiology of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, (neurodegenerative disease), can not be explained scientifically. But about 100,000 people worldwide have the disease. Go tell them that there disease doesn't exist since science can't explain it.

we definitely need a science section !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

owo2390:

Hum, there are some things science can't explain. For example, the etiology of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, (neurodegenerative disease), can not be explained scientifically. But about 100,000 people worldwide have the disease. Go tell them that there disease doesn't exist since science can't explain it.
we definitely need a science section !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Science works on the basis of facts, not hearsay or personal beliefs. I believe you know that already. The disease condition you mentioned is totally different from the issue at hand, "love" is a misnomer!!!

" what science cannot prove, does not exist."

You said that. You weren't specifically talking of love. But love is a disease to some people.

owo2390:

" what science cannot prove, does not exist."

You said that. You weren't specifically talking of love. But love is a disease to some people.

"Love delusion" is a disease to most people, a psychotic disease similar to the "God delusion".

Claremont, I want scientific evidence saying love does not exist. .Any links outside of nairaland?

Let's agree to disagree.

The fact that you call love a delusion is your opinion not a fact or a law. So follow your own advice and stop toting it around like its science.

Its disingenuous!!!

kandiikane:

Claremont, I want scientific evidence saying love does not exist. .Any links outside of nairaland?

All the research papers are on that thread, and are also available via Google.

owo2390:

Let's agree to disagree.
The fact that you call love a delusion is your opinion not a fact or a law. So follow your own advice and stop toting it around like its science.
Its disingenuous!!!

I have no opinion on any issue, I make my points based on widely available research papers. On the other hand, your opinion is based on your beliefs, my assertions are based on science.

1. Logic and Mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in circles.
2. Metaphysical truths like "there are other minds than my own, or the external world is real, or the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age are rational beliefs that can't be scientifically proven.
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method; you can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in concentration camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracy.
4. Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven, and finally and most remarkably, 5. Science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, in The Special Theory of Relativity; the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points "A and B". But that strictly cannot be proven! We simply have to assume that in order to uphold to the theory.

^^ He says his assertions are based on science, when it is largely known by scientists themselves, that science in its infinite glory cannot even be proved by "Science".
I'm really done now lol.

Full_lips:

1. Logic and Mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in circles.
2. Metaphysical truths like "there are other minds than my own, or the external world is real, or the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age are rational beliefs that can't be scientifically proven.
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method; you can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in concentration camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracy.
4. Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven, and finally and most remarkably, 5. Science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, in The Special Theory of Relativity; the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points "A and B". But that strictly cannot be proven! We simply have to assume that in order to uphold to the theory.

No need for all this dogma. You and your cohorts passionately believe in the existence of "love", I don't; therefore, the onus rests on you and your cohorts to prove to us "unbelievers" that "love" exists using objective evidence. That shouldn't be difficult for you guys to do, should it?!

Claremont, I have gone through four pages of your "love does not exist but a delusion thread" and I have not seen one evidence or link and it is really bugging me. .You cannot bring something up and say science say love does not exist because science says so but yet I have not seen one scientific evidence of your argument. .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_basis_for_love
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html
http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/lovesex/sciencelove.htm

The scientific tale of love begins innocently enough, with voles. The prairie vole is a sociable creature, one of the only 3% of mammal species that appear to form monogamous relationships. Mating between prairie voles is a tremendous 24-hour effort. After this, they bond for life. They prefer to spend time with each other, groom each other for hours on end and nest together. They avoid meeting other potential mates. The male becomes an aggressive guard of the female. And when their pups are born, they become affectionate and attentive parents. However, another vole, a close relative called the montane vole, has no interest in partnership beyond one-night-stand sex. What is intriguing is that these vast differences in behaviour are the result of a mere handful of genes. The two vole species are more than 99% alike, genetically.

When prairie voles Be Intimate, two hormones called oxytocin and vasopressin are released. If the release of these hormones is blocked, prairie-voles' sex becomes a fleeting affair, like that normally enjoyed by their rakish montane cousins. Conversely, if prairie voles are given an injection of the hormones, but prevented from Being Intimate, they will still form a preference for their chosen partner. In other words, researchers can make prairie voles fall in love — or whatever the vole equivalent of this is — with an injection.

In 2000, Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki of University College, London, located the areas of the brain activated by romantic love. They took students who said they were madly in love, put them into a brain scanner, and looked at their patterns of brain activity.

The results were surprising. For a start, a relatively small area of the human brain is active in love, compared with that involved in, say, ordinary friendship. “It is fascinating to reflect”, the pair conclude, “that the face that launched a thousand ships should have done so through such a limited expanse of cortex.” The second surprise was that the brain areas active in love are different from the areas activated in other emotional states, such as fear and anger. Parts of the brain that are love-bitten include the one responsible for gut feelings, and the ones which generate the euphoria induced by drugs such as cocaine. So the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke. Love, in other words, uses the neural mechanisms that are activated during the process of addiction. “We are literally addicted to love,” Dr Young observes. Like the prairie voles.

We call it love. It feels like love. But the most exhilarating of all human emotions is probably nature’s beautiful way of keeping the human species alive and reproducing.
With an irresistible cocktail of chemicals, our brain entices us to fall in love. We believe we’re choosing a partner. But we may merely be the happy victims of nature’s lovely plan.
It’s not what you say,
Psychologists have shown it takes between 90 seconds and 4 minutes to decide if you fancy someone.
Research has shown this has little to do with what is said, rather
55% is through body language
38% is the tone and speed of their voice
Only 7% is through what they say
The 3 stages of love
Helen Fisher of Rutgers University in the States has proposed 3 stages of love – lust, attraction and attachment. Each stage might be driven by different hormones and chemicals.
Stage 1: Lust
This is the first stage of love and is driven by the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen – in both men and women.
Stage 2: Attraction
This is the amazing time when you are truly love-struck and can think of little else. Scientists think that three main neurotransmitters are involved in this stage; adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin.
Adrenaline
The initial stages of falling for someone activates your stress response, increasing your blood levels of adrenalin and cortisol. This has the charming effect that when you unexpectedly bump into your new love, you start to sweat, your heart races and your mouth goes dry.
Dopamine
Helen Fisher asked newly ‘love struck’ couples to have their brains examined and discovered they have high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. This chemical stimulates ‘desire and reward’ by triggering an intense rush of pleasure. It has the same effect on the brain as taking cocaine!
Fisher suggests “couples often show the signs of surging dopamine: increased energy, less need for sleep or food, focused attention and exquisite delight in smallest details of this novel relationship” .
Serotonin
And finally, serotonin. One of love's most important chemicals that may explain why when you’re falling in love, your new lover keeps popping into your thoughts.
Does love change the way you think?
A landmark experiment in Pisa, Italy showed that early love (the attraction phase) really changes the way you think.
Dr Donatella Marazziti, a psychiatrist at the University of Pisa advertised for twenty couples who'd been madly in love for less than six months. She wanted to see if the brain mechanisms that cause you to constantly think about your lover, were related to the brain mechanisms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

By analysing blood samples from the lovers, Dr Marazitti discovered that serotonin levels of new lovers were equivalent to the low serotonin levels of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder patients.

Love needs to be blind
Newly smitten lovers often idealise their partner, magnifying their virtues and explaining away their flaws says Ellen Berscheid, a leading researcher on the psychology of love.
New couples also exalt the relationship itself. “It's very common to think they have a relationship that's closer and more special than anyone else's”. Psychologists think we need this rose-tinted view. It makes us want to stay together to enter the next stage of love – attachment.
Stage 3: Attachment
Attachment is the bond that keeps couples together long enough for them to have and raise children. Scientists think there might be two major hormones involved in this feeling of attachment; oxytocin and vasopressin. Oxytocin - The cuddle hormone
Oxytocin is a powerful hormone released by men and women during org[i]a[/i]sm.
It probably deepens the feelings of attachment and makes couples feel much closer to one another after they have Were Intimate. The theory goes that the more sex a couple has, the deeper their bond becomes.
Oxytocin also seems to help cement the strong bond between mum and baby and is released during childbirth. It is also responsible for a mum’s bosom automatically releasing milk at the mere sight or sound of her young baby.
Diane Witt, assistant professor of psychology from New York has showed that if you block the natural release of oxytocin in sheep and rats, they reject their own young.
Conversely, injecting oxytocin into female rats who’ve never Were Intimate, caused them to fawn over another female’s young, nuzzling the pups and protecting them as if they were their own.
Vasopressin
Vasopressin is another important hormone in the long-term commitment stage and is released after sex.
Vasopressin (also called anti-diuretic hormone) works with your kidneys to control thirst. Its potential role in long-term relationships was discovered when scientists looked at the prairie vole.
Prairie voles indulge in far more sex than is strictly necessary for the purposes of reproduction. They also – like humans - form fairly stable pair-bonds.
When male prairie voles were given a drug that suppresses the effect of vasopressin, the bond with their partner deteriorated immediately as they lost their devotion and failed to protect their partner from new suitors.
And finally … how to fall in love
Find a complete stranger.
Reveal to each other intimate details about your lives for half an hour.
Then, stare deeply into each other’s eyes without talking for four minutes.
York psychologist, Professor Arthur Arun, has been studying why people fall in love.
He asked his subjects to carry out the above 3 steps and found that many of his couples felt deeply attracted after the 34 minute experiment. Two of his subjects later got married.

@Kandiikane: You have only gone through 4 pages, that thread has 10 pages of evidence. This thread might also interest you >>>God does not exist, this is the proof https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-710647.0.html; after all people say God=Love, and Love=God.

@claremont, haha now I can tell that you feel backed into a corner. Its not Dogma, its Reason. You told us love wasn't real because it wasn't backed by science. I showed you 5 theories including science itself that cannot be proven scientifically. Like I said 2 + 2 =4 cannot be proven by a scientific method. Does it make it any less true, or false. Why don't you research some of your "scientific" counterparts on what they have to say about science itself? You might be shocked to learn that even they say science itself cannot be proven scientifically. Anyways, this little discussion was fun for me, I love challenging my mind and others. My mom always told me I was more than a pretty face and smile all logic and reasoning aside, I am wondering what your history is with "Love". Have you ever been in "love" before? Tell me about your past relationships, I'm hella curious.

_{^^^Lol, check his face 4 just 1 sec yu will understand}

@claremont, back-peddling on my previous post listing 5 theories that can't be proven by science, but are accepted as rational beliefs. Like the number 4 point. I can't say that I think you're kinda cute cause I can't back it up by science. Does that mean I am delusional? Well, I don't think I could be with someone who didn't think he was attractive because science does not back it up. So every time I say "Claremont, you are so cute, beautiful, gorgeous" You would bite my head off "abi?"lol

claremont:

@Kandiikane: You have only gone through 4 pages, that thread has 10 pages of evidence. This thread might also interest you >>>God does not exist, this is the proof https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-710647.0.html; after all people say God=Love, and Love=God.

I have not said Love is God but for you to prove love does not exist. .

I want you to tell me why I grieve when a close family member dies. .I want you to tell me why a mother would rather die than let anything happen to her child. .

Full_lips:

@claremont, haha now I can tell that you feel backed into a corner. Its not Dogma, its Reason. You told us love wasn't real because it wasn't backed by science. I showed you 5 theories including science itself that cannot be proven scientifically. Like I said 2 + 2 =4 cannot be proven by a scientific method. Does it make it any less true, or false. Why don't you research some of your "scientific" counterparts on what they have to say about science itself? You might be shocked to learn that even they say science itself cannot be proven scientifically. Anyways, this little discussion was fun for me, I love challenging my mind and others. My mom always told me I was more than a pretty face and smile all logic and reasoning aside,  I am wondering what your history is with "Love". Have you ever been in "love" before? Tell me about your past relationships, I'm hella curious.

Full_lips:

@claremont, back-peddling on my previous post listing 5 theories that can't be proven by science, but are accepted as rational beliefs. Like the number 4 point. I can't say that I think you're kinda cute cause I can't back it up by science. Does that mean I am delusional? Well, I don't think I could be with someone who didn't think he was attractive because science does not back it up. So every time I say "Claremont, you are so cute, beautiful, gorgeous" You would bite my head off "abi?"lol

I argue on the basis of hardcore scientific facts, I don't argue with people who quote Youtube videos or copy and paste phrases from the Internet to buttress irrational points. There are loads of research papers on this subject which have exhaustively proven that "love" does not exist. The mirage of "love" is something that has been promoted by the western media, we are made to believe that an illusion is real when it is clear that it is plainly not. If I see a child drowning by the river, I will go and save that child; I don't love that child, I don't have to wait till I receive the gentle prodding of "love" before I obey a basic human instinct of survival of species.
It is not about my personal relationships because I have never "loved" anyone. My relationships with my past, present, and future partners have all been based on mutual symbiosis and compatibility i.e. Give and Take, I am under no illusion whatsoever about the misnomer called "love". The reason I am passionate about this issue is the same reason I am passionate about the "God delusion", my passion stems from science; and until it has been conclusively proven that "love" exists by science, the present facts available points to non-existence.

kandiikane:

I have not said Love is God but for you to prove love does not exist. .
I want you to tell me why I grieve when a close family member dies. .I want you to tell me why a mother would rather die than let anything happen to her child. .

Even though I have proven in another thread that "love" does not exist based on science, I hesitate to continue to do so. This is because the onus rests on those who believe in "love" or the existence of a deity to prove to us that what they believe in exists. I am an "unbeliever" in this hypothesis, therefore, the onus doesn't rest with me inasmuch as I would want it to.
As regards your second question, evolutionary ties bind a mother and her offspring. This evolutionary ties has led to the perpetuation of our species over the centuries, it's not "love". The misnomer called "love" started just a couple of centuries ago actively perpetuated by the mass media, and it has never been an emotion but rather, it is a cultural misconception. No emotion called "love"!

I am still arguing with you, I was merely just letting you know what science cannot prove. Does it matter where i got it from, I'm educated as I can see you are. Your arguments are just as supported by what you claimed others have researched just as i have. You wanted scientific analysis and I gave it to you from the perspective of people who too are trained in the scientific world. My arguments are valid. The particular video you I posted and quoted from has been passed around by the scientific community, does that make my argument any less baseless, geeeez, There are loads of research papers on this subject which have exhaustively proven that "love" does not exist. Your thoughts are based off of the assumptions of scientists, so are mine. There are many scientists who have said love exists, while others say likewise. Science itself cannot be proven scientifically and there are other scientists that say the same thing. Ok I am done for real, you're hopeless, lol

Full_lips:

I am still arguing with you, I was merely just letting you know what science cannot prove. Does it matter where i got it from, I'm educated as I can see you are. Your arguments are just as supported by what you claimed others have researched just as i have. You wanted scientific analysis and I gave it to you from the perspective of people who too are trained in the scientific world. My arguments are valid. The particular video you I posted and quoted from has been passed around by the scientific community, does that make my argument any less baseless,  geeeez,   There are loads of research papers on this subject which have exhaustively proven that "love" does not exist. Your thoughts are based off of the assumptions of scientists, so are mine. There are many scientists who have said love exists, while others say likewise. Science itself cannot be proven scientifically and there are other scientists that say the same thing. Ok I am done for real, you're hopeless, lol

The guy you quoted "Science itself cannot be proven scientifically" most probably was stark drunk when he made such a callous statement. It is unbelievable, ridiculous and inconceivable for a scientist to say such a meaningless phrase like the above mentioned. Science is based on well-proven facts, logical arguments and analysis, how the hell can someone say that science cannot be proven scientifically?! The guy who made such a statement is not much different from a drunk Englishman, or at best, can be described as not much different from a raving lunatic!

wow this is still going on.

Let me jump in.

You incessantly speak about research and science hard facts like you did the studies yourself. You don't know how these scientists got their data, their subjects, their hypothesis, etc.

This debate is futile because we can't prove it. No one can.

It will go on forever and ever.

Science is a vehicle for people to explain the uncertain word they live in, so is love, religion, and magic. People need these things in order to better understand their world. You shouldn't call it delusions, because in other people's eye your "science" is a delusion. In addition, most scientific theories only make sense in ideal situations so sometimes they are irrelevant in the real world, since we live in a non-ideal world. For example, the duality of light as a particle (the photoelectric effect) or a wave (light comes in different wavelengths). Light can be a particle or a wave but never both at the same time. Because light is behaving as a wave at an instant, doesn't mean it can't behave as a particle in the next instant. Because love can't be scientifically proven now, doesn't mean it won't be proven later on in the future.

Have fate and open your heart to love.

He is not mad lol. Actually a lot of people in the scientific world agree with his notions. You know what I was with you at first since I think science is incredibly important to human existence, but now I will go out on a limb and say science cannot prove anything! Science cannot prove anything because it first has to start with unproven presumptions. Science assumes the world exists, and that it exists as we see it, and makes no attempt to prove that. As long as that is the case, nothing will ever be, strictly speaking, proven. Can someone start a new, and interesting thread please, This is beating a dead horse.

owo2390:

wow this is still going on.

Let me jump in.

You incessantly speak about research and science hard facts like you did the studies yourself. You don't know how these scientists got their data, their subjects, their hypothesis, etc.

This debate is futile because we can't prove it. No one can.

It will go on forever and ever.

Science is a vehicle for people to explain the uncertain word they live in, so is love, religion, and magic. People need these things in order to better understand their world. You shouldn't call it delusions, because in other people's eye your "science" is a delusion. In addition, most scientific theories only make sense in ideal situations so sometimes they are irrelevant in the real world, since we live in a non-ideal world. For example, the duality of light as a particle (the photoelectric effect) or a wave (light comes in different wavelengths). Light can be a particle or a wave but never both at the same time. Because light is behaving as a wave at an instant, doesn't mean it can't behave as a particle in the next instant. Because love can't be scientifically proven now, doesn't mean it won't be proven later on in the future.

Have fate and open your heart to love.

OMG thank You, lol It really is beating a dead horse. Can you pretty please start a new and interesting post? Pweety please? lol and let's not invite the party pooper,

@claremont, you are just mouthing for for no reason. .

evolutionary ties bind a mother and her offspring.
What is the meaning of this? This is your answer? Evolutionary ties bind a mother to her offspring. .This is your answer?

I have asked you so many times to just post the links and research you found on the matter and you are still telling me you base your arguments on hardcore scientific fact. .I want to see with my eyes these so-called hardcore scientific facts. .It is not a hard thing to do. .Just post where you got these hard core scientific facts. .

Full_lips:

He is not mad lol. Actually a lot of people in the scientific world agree with his notions. You know what I was with you at first since I think science is incredibly important to human existence, but now I will go out on a limb and say science cannot prove anything! Science cannot prove anything because it first has to start with unproven presumptions. Science assumes the world exists, and that it exists as we see it, and makes no attempt to prove that. As long as that is the case, nothing will ever be, strictly speaking, proven.  Can someone start a new, and interesting thread please,  This is beating a dead horse.

"Science cannot prove anything"?
BOLLOCKS!!!  I give up, I really do

Because youre not sure if he/she will catch you.