Thread: Love is a chemical reaction

Another sidenote, when the author refers to 'feedback control', I'm pretty sure, though not positive, that he's reffering to \"feedback inhibition\"[/b]

Face it, not everything we can predict. And not everything we are able to understand. There is no name or concept for processes that are not yet discovered, and because we cannot correctly predict we cannot say that is is predictable obviously, because to us, with our understanding. Its not yet. We have as yet to correctly predict it. It is yet to be defined as predictable. Feedback control thus is used in a much better context here.

we are designed to reproduce, its our mission in life![/b]

One thing I dread is a billion trillion people walking around on earth, stating this, with no concept of life, other than to reproduce.

Originally posted by Ex Nine+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ex Nine)</div>

Does that mean people who don't reproduce fail in life's mission?[/b]

Yes.

<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana
Face it, not everything we can predict. And not everything we are able to understand. There is no name or concept for processes that are not yet discovered, and because we cannot correctly predict we cannot say that is is predictable obviously, because to us, with our understanding. Its not yet. We have as yet to correctly predict it. It is yet to be defined as predictable. Feedback control thus is used in a much better context here.

Quit talking about things that you obviously don't understand. The author was talking about feedback contol in chemical systems, not spirituality, love, feelings or any of that crap. In order to understand what he's talking about, you'll need to read a text book or take a chemistry class. Two things I'm betting you've never done.

Face it, every living organism (including the 'high and mighty' human) is nothing more than an information conduit. The sole purpose of existence is to pass one's genetic information onto the next generation.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Yes.[/b]

What if a child dies in childbirth? Or SIDS? Or a miscarriage? Has the parent failed in life's mission then?

What if the child grows into an adult but then fails to reproduce? Does the parent fail by proxy, if he or she does not have any other children?

What are the criteria for success in life's mission?

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Face it, every living organism (including the 'high and mighty' human) is nothing more than an information conduit. The sole purpose of existence is to pass one's genetic information onto the next generation.

At the risk of sounding like Awaken, and believe me I don't take that risk lightly, I think it's a non-sequitor fallacy to move from the first statement to the second.

I'm just fine with the bio-materialist conception of humanity. But I really have to hold back my disgust at the narrowness of the claim that the "sole purpose" of existence is to pass on "genetic" information. There are plenty of other types of information. Humans have mastered the nature of information more than any other animal after all. We don't just pass on genes. We pass on knowledge, technology, music, art, and so much more.

Brady, I am surprised that you would take the view that puts sole importance on genes, especially considering your love of music.

Originally posted by Ex Nine+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ex Nine)</div>

What if a child dies in childbirth? Or SIDS? Or a miscarriage? Has the parent failed in life's mission then?

What if the child grows into an adult but then fails to reproduce? Does the parent fail by proxy, if he or she does not have any other children?

What are the criteria for success in life's mission?[/b]

If you play a role in successfully fertilizing an egg with some our your genetic material, I would say you've succeeded in life's mission. After that it's all up to chance.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ex Nine
But I really have to hold back my disgust at the narrowness of the claim that the \"sole purpose\" of existence is to pass on \"genetic\" information. There are plenty of other types of information. Humans have mastered the nature of information more than any other animal after all. We don't just pass on genes. We pass on knowledge, technology, music, art, and so much more.

Byproducts of evolution made possible by the development of long term memory. It's true that we pass on all this things, but genetic material is the only essential. If it weren't for viable offspring, there would be nobody to pass all this 'high art' on to.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Brady, I am surprised that you would take the view that puts sole importance on genes, especially considering your love of music.

I love all sorts of meaningless crap.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Byproducts of evolution made possible by the development of long term memory. It's true that we pass on all this things, but genetic material is the only essential. If it weren't for viable offspring, there would be nobody to pass all this 'high art' on to.

True, but it still doesn't follow that reproduction is the goal of each and every individual human life, just of human life in general. As long as there is a moderate rate of reproduction, human beings can still pass along information without the necessity of doing so genetically, and without sacrificing the survivability the species.

In fact there are plenty of ways this relationship can work for the species' advantage, and this is probably exactly why our species has adapted to isolate reproduction from the act of sex. I was arguing something similar to this in that homosexual evolution thread we had a couple months ago, but I'm not sure anyone was listening.

I'm an enzyme baby, so come here and let's make a reaction

Originally posted by Ex Nine
True, but it still doesn't follow that reproduction is the goal of each and every individual human life, just of human life in general. As long as there is a moderate rate of reproduction, human beings can still pass along information without the necessity of doing so genetically, and without sacrificing the survivability the species.

Well I guess life is what you make of it. I just get irritated when people claim that human life has some special dignity...like the universe would fall apart if it weren't for our presence.

This quote seems appropriate, though I forget where I got it from...
"true sanity comes from the acceptance that life is utterly meaningless. What it 'means' then, is as subjective as what one desires on their pizza."

People are endlessly confusing effects with causes. Yes, being in love has a chemical effect, but why should we then suppose that the existence of a chemical had caused the love, when it is more likely the effect. A boat leaves behind a wake, but no one supposes that the wake has been pushing the boat forward. A man in love has an erection, but he was in love before he got excited... or perhaps that is not the best example.

I only read the first post and just skimmed through the rest of the crap but it seems obvious to me that this guys initial experimnt on "love" is faulty. Those people who recently fell in love...were just experiencing INFATUATION. Yes infatuation is what produces those wonderful chemicals that make us crazy for someone and make us think we are in love with them. Now after the infatuation wears off...that's when you realize whether or not you TRULY love someone. And from my experience in my last long term relationship it took me a full year I think for the infatuation to wear off and to realize that I did really love this person. So....the chemical drop after the year is simply to me when the infatuation wears off.

I agree, Nina.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Well I guess life is what you make of it. I just get irritated when people claim that human life has some special dignity...like the universe would fall apart if it weren't for our presence.

So do I. But I always hope that the same mistake isn't made in reverse. Human beings still are special, very special. Just not that special.

This quote seems appropriate, though I forget where I got it from...
\"true sanity comes from the acceptance that life is utterly meaningless. What it 'means' then, is as subjective as what one desires on their pizza.\"[/b]

Actually, that might have been Bill Hicks. (I may not have thought he was funny in that one thread, but I've since looked some of his other stuff up, and overall he's pretty good).

Anyways, I think evolutionary biologists have a brilliant but limited view of evolution. That limitation is biology, and that's just fine if their professional interest is in biology, but evolutionary processes occur elsewhere in nature, especially in economics and technology. These processes depend on very large amounts of non-biological material And right now human beings have the monopoly on technological evolution. That's what makes us special.

[Edit: I just realized that you might say that since economics and technology are human activities that these can be explained by biology as well. But not entirely. Economics and technology rely on vast amounts of non-biological material, and it is precisely inanimate matter that is doing most of the evolving (e.g., products, capital goods, machines, artificial intelligence... you see where I'm going with this )]

Have you read any transhumanist or posthumanist literature, Brady? I'm reading Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, and he expands the concept of evolution all the way back to the Big Bang and onward into a future where where human beings become so intertwined with technology that it will not longer be meaningful to call us biological life. He's attempting to provide a unifying principle that brings together and explains all other transhumanist theories while bridging them with the rest of the sciences as well (including economics and computer science - that's what really intrigues me about it).

I haven't read much of Loop Quantum Gravity theory, but Lee Smolin says he gets inspiration from biology and, if I'm not mistaken, takes an evolutionary perspective of physics to describe non-quantized physical laws as "emergent."

I appreciate your perspective, Brady.

Bringing this back to the topic - love is a biochemical reaction, but from a wider perspective it's a physical one as well.

If you play a role in successfully fertilizing an egg with some our your genetic material, I would say you've succeeded in life's mission.[/b]

If one person helps save millions of lives, and provides better quality living standards for generations to come, without fertilizing one egg. While another mass murders thousands of people. Degrading the quality of life for generations to come, While fertilizing 1 egg. Who do you think is more successful in lifes mission?

well naturally. ALL of life is a series of chemical reactions, either catabolic or anabolic (other possibilities too, like increasing/decreasing the concentration of a particular ion in a cell, but you get the picture). that's it. that's life itself. shouldn't really take away from anyone's view or opinion or interest of love (or life) though, since it still is absolutely fascinating and astonishing.

icedawg is right, we still don't know how the process works. The effects (such as consiousness) are still amazing, and its full potential unrealized.

Originally posted by Nina
I only read the first post and just skimmed through the rest of the crap but it seems obvious to me that this guys initial experimnt on \"love\" is faulty.

I see what you mean, but keep in mind that the popular media has a way of sensationalizing everything. I'm sure that the originally study didn't make the blanket statement that this NGF is the be all and end all of love. But there is no doubt that it plays a role.

In fact, I gave this thread such a blunt title to attract attention.

Ex Nine:
I haven't read any material on the topics you mentioned, but I'll check it out for sure.

As I was reading your post it occured to me that all of these non-biological subjects you mention could viewed as means toward reproduction. It's clear that people (in general) desire the rich, powerful, intelligent and talented. So would it not follow that music, art, ecomomics, and technology are just the result of things we do to get in each other's pants?

Originally posted by Nirvana
If one person helps save millions of lives, and provides better quality living standards for generations to come, without fertilizing one egg. While another mass murders thousands of people. Degrading the quality of life for generations to come, While fertilizing 1 egg. Who do you think is more successful in lifes mission?

An interesting point...I'll have to think on that one.

Originally posted by bradybaker
It's clear that people (in general) desire the rich, powerful, intelligent and talented. So would it not follow that music, art, ecomomics, and technology are just the result of things we do to get in each other's pants?

Historically? When these things first emerged from hominid behavior? Probably.

But today, now that each of these things have taken on their own evolutionary characteristics? No, they've become significantly more independent and are definitely not \"just\" the result of the desire to reproduce.

Ultimately they're related to reproduction on a high level of abstraction. These things all have to do with creativity, and procreation is one of the most ancient creative acts we have. But we no longer think of it as creative, assuming we ever did. Creation means a whole lot more to us, doesn't it?

Ask any artist if they do what they do because they want to have sex. They'll probably admit, \"it'd be really nice,\" but not claim that it is the primary goal of their work.

Why don't I ask you... Do you write scripts so that you can sexually reproduce?

------------------

Oh yeah, here's a link to a paper by Kurzweil that is his essential thesis, the \"law of accelerating returns.\"

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134...tml?printable=1

It's a bit long, but you can scroll down to the parts where he talks about evolution without missing much.

And just to add, as a nascent economist, it's this part towards the end that mostly concerns me:

Originally posted by Kurzweil
I am not saying that technology will evolve to human levels and beyond simply because it is our destiny and because of the satisfaction of a spiritual quest. Rather my projections result from a methodology based on the dynamics underlying the (double) exponential growth of technological processes. The primary force driving technology is economic imperative. We are moving toward machines with human level intelligence (and beyond) as the result of millions of small advances, each with their own particular economic justification.

Let me tell you, not only does no one talk about that in business school, but the fundamental precepts of economics that are taught in econ courses outright contradict Kurzweil's claims. In particular, I'm referring to diminishing marginal returns (which is of course the opposite of accelerating returns) and the quantity theory of money, which states that price deflation is detrimental to economic growth, a la the Great Depression (which would preclude economic growth from Kurzweil's accelerating price-performance on abstract technological services, such as computation cycles). Both of these concepts are at the core of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics respectively. And they're basically a bunch of shit, according to Kurzweil.

And I'm inclined to agree.

Wow, I was just watching "A Science Odyssey," a PBS special about advances in science in the 20th century, and they referred to an experiment where human DNA was injected into bacteria that had a genetic growth defect. The simple introduction of human DNA was enough to repair the defect and they started to grow and reproduce again.

Talk about love!

"Hey, little dude, use my chemical life force to heal thyself and multiply."

And never mind the fossil record. That is bitchin'. There's no way we're not related.

That's pretty cool. Our DNA must have produced protein strings that repaired the problem.
For all we know it might not go so well for it later, when other chemical mixes arise and create different protein strings.

Originally posted by Placebo
For all we know it might not go so well for it later, when other chemical mixes arise and create different protein strings.

Hmm, maybe they cut some of those genes out?

Still remarkable, though.

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Wow, I was just watching \"A Science Odyssey,\" a PBS special about advances in science in the 20th century, and they referred to an experiment where human DNA was injected into bacteria that had a genetic growth defect. The simple introduction of human DNA was enough to repair the defect and they started to grow and reproduce again.

Talk about love!

\"Hey, little dude, use my chemical life force to heal thyself and multiply.\"

And never mind the fossil record. That is bitchin'. There's no way we're not related.

We produce insulin in the same way. The DNA gene template for insulin is implanted into a bacteria and they begin the translation and transcription processes that lead to insulin. Then we extract the insulin and use it when needed.

This is possible because the genetic code for amino acids is universal.

Love indeed is a chemical reaction that has reproduction and protection of kin (genetic relatives) and such.

Yet, if we are in love, it's like dreaming: it looks real, and not something in your head