This thread appears to be dead, as it is a month old, and the OP never returned to it. But I'd like to offer a few thoughts in case he/she does come back.

First of all, I think that I understand what PFF is trying to say about love. Love seems to be something that persists in any long-term relationship, whether the relationship is romantic, platonic, fraternal, or familial in nature, and despite a wide range of other emotions and emotional intensities throughout the course of the relationship. Thus, a couple can have a bitter argument in which each person is very angry at the other, and yet their love can stay intact (and they can both be aware that it's intact) during and after the argument. This is what PFF means by "love" not being a simple emotion. However, by the same token, I can classify "happiness" and "depression" in the same way as "love." These are not mere feelings or moods: They represent steady states in one's overall disposition. Surveys have found that most Americans describes themselves as being happy with their lives, even though most Americans wish that they had more money to buy luxury goods and regularly experience negative emotions. On the flip side, patients who suffer from chronic (often 10+ years) mild depression, a disorder known as "dysthymia," often experience transitory positive emotions, but they are in a somewhat bad and/or enervated mood most of the of time and definitely would not describe themselves as being happy with their lives.

If love is "transcendent," in the sense that it has a fundamentally mystical nature that puts it outside of the realm of scientific investigation, then it must exist outside of the human brain. But such an idea is problematic for two main reasons: 1) As far as all scientific research has shown, all human subjective experiences happen inside of the brain (including alleged "out of body" experiences). Since love is something that we can subjectively experience, we have no reason to believe that it exists outside of the brain. 2) As far as all scientific research has shown, anything that exists outside of subjective experience can be detected by science. (Note that this is one of the fundamental problems with the concept of the "soul": If such a thing does exist and truly animates the body and powers consciousness as claimed; i.e., it has physical effects; then its existence could be established by science and not be left to faith.) Since love can only be observed as an effect on subjective experience and behavior, there is no good reason to think that it exists outside of the brain.

Going back to the nature of love and why it confounds PFF, I'd like to offer a somewhat different psychological perspective than has been given so far. Others have suggested that perhaps we are mistaken when we say that we "love" the person with whom we have a relationship, instead that love is only a transient feeling that we experience in some contexts or when triggered by certain things associated with it. Thus, when we're with the person but don't feel anything in particular, it means that we don't actually love her/him in that moment. But I think that this is wrong, a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

I propose that love be seen like any aspect of one's personality. Most adults' personalities are highly complex and contain seemingly contradictory aspects. Not all of the aspects of a personality can manifest at one moment, so does this mean that a personality is constantly changing from moment to moment? Of course not. Personalities do change, but gradually over time (except in cases of severe brain injury); they tend to be very stable in the short term. And when a person is all alone with no stimulus to provoke any thought or behavior, does it mean that her/his personality ceases to exist, however temporarily? Of course not. An individual's personality is shaped by genetics, biology, and all of the experiences/memories in her/his life. The personality always exists as an underlying pattern/guide for intellectual, emotional, and behavioral responses, and it's physically implemented by the person's unique brain structure and chemistry. And so it is with love. Jeremiah called it a result of Pavlovian conditioning, but I think that characterization is a bit reductive, though accurate. That love is persistent (or gradually changes) should be no more mysterious or special than why a personality is persistent (or gradually changes). Whatever mystical quality that love may seem to have beyond that is simply due to people romanticizing it, a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

The issue of truth is muddled because PFF hasn't clearly defined what is meant by "truth" in this discussion. The example of martyrs doesn't help clarify the matter. PFF seems to be arguing that the notion of freedom being human right is an objective, universal truth that transcends human values. And that's why people believe in it and die for it, so PFF suggests. When UrsaMinor mentioned that martyrdom does not prove the truth of anything, PFF missed the point and instead claimed to be playing devil's advocate or something along those lines. UrsaMinor may have likewise missed PFF's point, because I did not see a proper rebuttal of it. The problem is that PFF is arguing from a privileged perspective. Of course, all of us here would agree that freedom is a basic human right, but most of us would not agree that the idea is a transcendent truth. There is simply no coherent way to establish its transcendent truth, because it's an issue that so far only concerns humans, not other life forms. Furthermore, not everyone agrees with the idea. Leaders of authoritarian regimes certainly don't. Hundreds of years ago, most people had no problem with slavery. However, I'm not arguing for moral or cultural relativism. I'm just saying that in order for the idea to be truth, there has to be an objective way to prove it, so that it's no longer a matter of opinion. The truth about global warming is established by science, even though many conservatives have dissenting opinions.

The freedom issue could be logically "proven," but it would still be premised on a complex framework of values, at least part of which bears a strongly subjective component. And so it is for any moral issue. In the end, values are really all that matter. I'm going to make a slight tangent to illustrate the point: Early economists struggled to develop a robust theory of value that could explain why some things have higher value in trade than others, even when prices seem counterintuitive. The classic example is water versus diamonds. Diamonds have very high value in trade while water has very low value in trade; yet diamonds (at least until fairly recently) have little practical utility while water has enormous practical utility. For some time, the most popular theory was the Labor Theory of Value, which states that the more labor that is required to produce a good, the greater its value and hence its price will be. But this still failed explain the prices of many goods. Then a movement called the "marginalist revolution" happened, and a new theory became universally accepted, the Marginal Utility Theory of Value. It states that no good has an inherent value; the value/price of a good is determined by the size of the market and what buyers in the market are willing to pay, which is determined by their subjective and potentially arbitrary valuations. So diamonds command high prices because a lot of people think that they are worth those prices (and also because of the relative scarcity of diamonds, which I believe is largely due to political forces, not an actual shortage of supply). But there are some people for whom diamonds are worthless, and they would much rather pay a premium for a generous supply of clean water.

To say that the notion of freedom as human right is not a transcendent truth absolutely does NOT mean that people who fight to their deaths for it "die for nothing." They die for an important thing, perhaps the most important thing in human existence: They die for their values. Those values are determined by one's personality, which is directly implemented entirely in one's brain. That's why particular values may differ from person to person, or at least differ in importance relative to each other. Values are really what motivate people to do anything, and the seemingly intuitive nature of values makes the importance of keeping one's values (i.e., integrity) a commonly-held value in itself. Many months ago, the Unreasonable Faith blog shared a video by an atheist on YouTube who offered a homeless family money if they would cross-out "God" from their panhandling sign. He did this to try to show the audience delusional thinking at work, since the family refused the deal even though it would get them much-needed money to feed their children. The vlogger received a lot of criticism from the atheist community for making a totally unfair point and an unfair deal. The problem was that he was asking the family to compromise their values, and though atheists disagree with those values, they still respect the family's integrity (and abhor the vlogger's seeming lack thereof).

I honestly feel kind of sorry for PFF, because if his/her credentials are as claimed, then he/she is an intelligent person who's nonetheless struggling with ideas that are not difficult to grasp. We are not all geniuses, or scientists, or trained philosophers here, but none of us have trouble understanding these points. Such is the problem with the religious mindset.

Yet as LRA pointed out though love is observable,and chemical. Then again just because you can't observe it does not mean someone else can not,or if you prefer detect it's effects upon you or something else. I would think there are many thing that are let us say experienced within ones self(love,estatic behavior,emotions to name a few), that can only be properly observed or detected from without via machines or another person perhaps. I would furthermore say that if there is no detectable nor observable effect(concepts close but not quite the same as machines can detect things we don't see,that is observe) then nothing happened, and the person who claims that something happened or that they expierinced something is wrong about 99 out of 100 times(remember that there is a 'god' locus of sort in the brain that activates when some but not all claim to experience some transcendantal stuff like speaking in tounges etc and this can be measured via cat scans,and mri's). Just saying that if it can't be measured via detection,nor observed I would bet it's self delusion or pure BS.

@UrsaMajor:

Yeah, I think you're right, we are rather getting into semantics here. My original comment was in response to the discussion a bit ago about whether love can be considered as really existing, even if you can't observe it at a particular time. My point was that just because something is not having an observable effect at a particular moment or under particular circumstances does not mean it doesn't exist.

@kessy_athena:

As a scientist, I do not see this as a useful distinction. Strictly speaking, nothing is directly observable. For example, you cannot observe light- you can only detect its effects on electrons, molecular vibration, and molecular rotation. Every bit of information that you get about it is a secondary effect, and not an observation of the light itself. When you detect its effects, the photon (or wave) has already ceased to exist. All you are left with are its aftereffects on matter. This holds for everything from the biomechanics of ordinary human vision to photography (chemical and digital) to double-slit experiments with coherent light sources that demonstrate the wave-particle duality.

I'd be really hard put to name any physical phenomenon that is observed directly, and not detected by its effects.

I suppose the semantics of it hinge on what you mean by "observe". Perhaps "detect" is the better scientific term.

@UrsaMinor No,a phenomenon can have effects which are observable while the phenomenon itself is not. You are familiar with the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics? It is in principle impossible to observe a quantum particle without collapsing the wave function and destroying the wave like behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Love is a wonderful story we tell ourselves to explain chemical reactions in our brains.

@kessy_athena: If effects are measurable, the phenomenon is observable, q.e.d.

About the discussion of love: I would suggest that observability is a terrible criteria for existence. For example, quantum mechanics describes with rigorous mathematics behaviors of physical systems that in principle are unobservable, and yet still have measurable effects.

Hey, PFF. No worries. I know we can be a tough crowd, but we're sincere and like good people. One of our favorite Christians here is JonJon.

We'll catch up when you get back!

Ursa! I'm gonna miss you! *hugs* HAVE FUN!!!!!

I'll be out of the loop for the next two weeks or so while I'm on vacation. Leaving tomorrow morning bright and early. Carry on, and I'll be interested in seeing where this has gone when I get back.

ah, my bad manners. ok, since it seems like we're on pretty good terms now, i just wanted to say that i'm on duty doing some special projects in another country, hence my really, really infrequent posts. at the moment, my schedule is insane, being in a 3rd world country, internet connection is very hard to come by. i am seriously squeezing this in-between some events. i'll be back hopefully soon, and for sure within a week in a half. that was pretty inconsiderate to not say anything for a few days, but don't worry, you guys are still my favorite group of people to interact with online (i'm not gonna lie, i've lost sleep thinking about the things we've talked about in this forum)

@ a lot of people, and esp. LRA. yea, sorry for not responding, i definitely had something in the works before my schedule got hectic, hopefully you'll be seeing me on a more frequent basis. and...thanks. i really appreciate you guys starting to warm up to me, i was seriously getting worried that actually being a non-atheist would hinder our relationship :D bye and see you soon

@PFF re. your response to me, I'll keep it short and sweet, as it is off topic, and it's nice to see an on-topic conversation. I think if you look at the whole GiL saga what you describe kinda happened, just with some shouty-sweary-dismissals in-between. Sometimes patience only goes so far, and the risk of offending some well-meaning person such as yourself is outweighed by the benefits of getting rid of an annoyance. It's all well and good correcting errors, but sometimes other people don't share your repect for logic.

The only atheistic tenet is to reject claims of the existence of atheistic tenets ;-). My Brother-in-Law asked me if I would give my life to save him, and my quick response was "No!" His immediate response was "well then I can't trust you with anything." Non-Sequitur aside, the reason I wouldn't give my life to save him is because I have to look after his sister and my daughter. I feel a sense of responsibility toward them, fostered by cultural norms and oxytocin.

From a military perspective, I think the myth that only christians die for their country is thoroughly dispelled.

Note that animals regularly put their lives at risk to warn others (including those not of the same species) of predators. This would undermine the assumption that the force behind it is mystical.

@PFF

The fish sucked compared to properly prepared real fish. Frozen fish is about the best I can conjure up as a pathetic single guy. Put enough tartar sauce on it and all is fine.

...it's that I have an extreme sense of horror of them.

In my opinion, cats get a bad rap. Like any unknown, the fear is usually unjustified.

Now, as an atheist, I believe this is the only life we have. Religion is for those who believe in consciousness after death.

As for dying for a cause outside of myself, I think if I were to be put into a position where I could save someone, like pulling them from a fire or throwing myself in front of a bus to keep someone from dying, I probably would, even if I knew I would not survive. This may be partially due to the fact that I have no children, wife, or parents. If I had any of these, I may reconsider the options. This may also have something to do with my morals. If I died tomorrow to save a son, a daughter, a father or mother, then that, to me, would be a viable sacrifice.

When it comes to my cats, say for instance my house is on fire, I believe that I would think of their well-being before mine. To see any living thing as dear to me as my "kids" in distress would drive me to my limits and beyond. As to whether or not I'm willing to die for a cat, I really can't say.

Maybe the implications on those around you play a big part in the decisions one takes. Who can say what they would actually do until confronted with such a scenario.

whew. i though I was going to have to pick up the slack for ursa. you're a peach, LRA.

In the mean time, poor PFF will be left to deal with me... MWAAAAHAHAHA!!!!

:P

Just kidding!

:D

@PFF:

An informal posting style is fine as long as you still take care to be clear in what you are saying. Also, I'd suggest that whenever you are playing Devil's Advocate and arguing a point of view that is not your own (e.g., the "common mistake" above), you state that very clearly. It's a perfectly good debating technique, it just needs to be used in a straightforward manner.

Anyway, I gave you a scientific reason why it is sometimes advantageous to sacrifice yourself for an idea that may or may not be true. It's a favorite topic of sociobiologists, and there is experiment evidence that supports the theory in other species. Bees are particularly amenable to this sort of study because of their mixed one parent/two parent genetics and the ease with which you can measure the amount of resources expended on supporting close kin. Humans, of course, are a little more complicated in their behavior- we tend to transfer social allegiance to non-kin in a way that bees do not, and then treat unrelated individuals as kin. The waters are still muddy, but it's a fascinating field of study.

EDIT: I will be posting nothing at all for two weeks starting on Friday, since I will be out of town and without an internet connection, but I'll try to catch up when I return.

As an atheist, dying for ANYTHING would be ridiculous, right? Or WOULD an atheist die for a cause outside of themselves?

No, atheists die for things at about the same rate as everyone else. Plenty of atheists are patriotic (in whatever country they happen to be born into/have adopted as their own) and join the military and die (and kill) like everyone else. Some would risk their lives to help another person in mortal danger, and many more probably think that they would (bravery and cowardice being, also, two personal aspects unaffected by one's religious opinions, by-and-large). Political ideologies and political fanaticism afflict atheists much as they do the religious, and certainly some fanatics can be worked into a mood for martyrdom.

@ UrsaMinor. "I'll readily admit that I fell into the trap. The fact that you felt it necessary to set one instead of offering a straightforward discussion lowers my opinion of you quite a bit. I don't have the inclination to parse everything you write with a fine-tooth comb to see if you're just trying to trip me up instead of saying what you mean, so I will probably not a have a great deal more input into this thread." Ah, I feel bad about that. It wasn't a trap. In my last post, all I meant was that it's a very common misreading. Frankly, (I'll just say it) I am not intelligent enough to lay a logical trap. The blame also lies on me because in that last post, I started posting a little more informally because I was starting to feel comfortable dialoging with everyone, and not so much on the defensive. This is probably the wrong way to post, as while I was starting to post as if you guys were my friends, many of you probably don't think of it that way, so my words definitely in the last post sounded condescending. I apologize. Also, please keep contributing, because as I said, I think you're very sharp, and your arguments are some of the most sound that I've encountered.

@ everyone. Also, in regards to my question at the end, I also posed that informally, so please don't read it like I'm being accusatory or presumptious. My curiosity often leads me into trouble that way. And, as a last note, I really like talking to you guys, your posts are definitely enlightening, and because many of them are personal, I'm definitely getting a lot of of this. (Thanks in particular about the example your son, B.O.B.)

Now, as I was saying, it's not scientific at all, to say that dying for a cause outside of yourself has value. I'm actually wondering how atheists would view that, because isn't one tenet of atheism the absolute value of your life? This is the only life you'll have, period? So wouldn't it NOT make sense to die for freedom or something, because once you're dead, it's pretty much over?

I would contend this with the point that as human beings (most) of us have empathy built in. We also have kinship built in. These things will cause me to put the welfare of others ahead of my own from time to time, even to the point of death. You could say that this is not logically self-interested but we are not logically self-interested creatures. I don't think you could say it isn't scientific because that is just a different kind of question. Dying for a cause can have value in regards to improvements in the lives of those who are still alive and reap the rewards of that sacrifice. So it can generate value, but maybe not for me personally but the fact that it isn't personally for me doesn't make it 'unscientific'. I am not even sure I know what you mean by using it in that context.

I don't know that absolute life value is tenet of atheism at all but I guess most would say that the value (or lack thereof) is up to me to decide. I may decide it is of primary importance, or I might decide it is important but not as important as some other person's life, or I might decide that it isn't important at all which is relevant in assisted suicide debates. Basically the value I place on my life is the value I place on my life, no more, no less. There is nothing inherent or absolute about it.

@PFF

Well, let's line up the statements you made.

- You think Truth exists.
- You observed that people are willing to die defending Truth.
- You stated that if Truth didn't exist, these people would have died for nothing.

Now here's the clinker:

Now, I know this isn't a more logical approach to the question, but it's a more common-sense thing (I'm so going to get nailed for this, haha), but does anybody really believe that these people wasted their lives?

Technically, no, this is not an assertion. But you used a common rhetorical device that is understood to indicate that the writer does not subscribe to the notion put forth (i.e., that 'these people wasted their lives'), and further, that he is promoting the opposite view. I.e., that these people did NOT waste their lives, and that sounds like an attempt to affirm the consequent (a step you did not actually take). I connected dots that weren't actually connected.

I'll readily admit that I fell into the trap. The fact that you felt it necessary to set one instead of offering a straightforward discussion lowers my opinion of you quite a bit. I don't have the inclination to parse everything you write with a fine-tooth comb to see if you're just trying to trip me up instead of saying what you mean, so I will probably not a have a great deal more input into this thread.

It is worth dying for a value that may or may not exist if the sacrifice you make by doing so ensures that your genes will be represented in the next generation. Protecting close kin is a rational justification for self-sacrifice.

@Phil. It appears that you are confusing "outside of yourself" with "outside of reality". There are things that have greater value to me than my own life. For example: If I were in a situation where either my son I had to die I would choose to die because I place a higher value on the potential of his life than I do on the remainder of mine. My son is "outside my self", but he also can be repeatedly and independently demonstrated to exist. I find it somewhat disingenuous to place everything other than one's self in the same category as abstract ideas like "freedom" etc. If that was not your intent please clarify.

@ Justin Gage. How was the fish dinner? And about the evilness of cats, I'd like you to join the new thread I just started "Can the evilness of cats be verified by science?" haha jk, it's not that I don't like cats, it's that I have an extreme sense of horror of them. They started it, with their watching eyes and cunning ways (always plotting). Ok, joking aside, cats, not so bad. But 12? I keep picturing you as the crazy cat lady from the Simpsons, but probably a dude since your name is Justin, and probably not throwing cats at people like she does (even though that does sound hilarious).

Thanks for sharing a personal example, I happen to be a fan of good examples (makes a point so much easier, and this is in reference to your post from like, 3 days ago, lol) And in regards to your last post, the problem of measuring love is indeed the prime reason why I started this thread. It's wracked my brain for a while, this love thing, but I'm going to give you my conclusion in the next post and see if you can find something that you have a problem with.

@ UrsaMinor. Haha, who called it? "Now, I know this isn't a more logical approach to the question, but it's a more common-sense thing (I"M SO GOING TO GET NAILED FOR THIS, HAHA), but does anybody really believe that these people wasted their lives?" Now Ursa, I've admired your mind particularly because you're pretty sharp, so I'll ask you to actually quote that assertion I made where it is true because people died for it....lol, didn't find it, did you? I actually never made that assertion. I'd say that's a mistake that 99.9% would point out if they didn't read over my post carefully. I thought somebody might point that out, that's why I planted that red flag there as a warning. My assertion is not that it is true because people died for it, but more like, "ok, does anybody here really believe that you're throwing your life away by dying for a cause outside of yourself?" this is actually an appeal to conscience, as in, does anyone here believe dying for freedom is a worthless cause? (almost nobody would say that, oh i hope, but validly they could)

Now, as I was saying, it's not scientific at all, to say that dying for a cause outside of yourself has value. I'm actually wondering how atheists would view that, because isn't one tenet of atheism the absolute value of your life? This is the only life you'll have, period? So wouldn't it NOT make sense to die for freedom or something, because once you're dead, it's pretty much over? (If the choice lies between living in oppression or not existing, then I'd be the first to say "one portion of oppression, please".) As an atheist, dying for ANYTHING would be ridiculous, right? Or WOULD an atheist die for a cause outside of themselves? I've never had the opportunity to talk with an atheist about this, and at the risk of totally derailing my own thread, is dying worth it for a value that may or may not exist?

@Ursa

If something transcends physical detection, how would you even know it exists, and why would you suspect its existence in the first place?

I think that you think that I believe in anything transcendent which I do not. I was merely responding to it in the context of the OP.

And... typing on this tablet is pissing me off so I will be back once the docking station is charged.

@PFF

Well, from a scientific perspective, love *is* observable. Check this out:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17531984

That's a review article, btw. If you look to the right, there will be related articles.

Love is observable *both* in people's behaviors and in their neurochemistry. It's not as if love exists in a vacuum on some higher plane of existence! It's not as if we've never seen love or never experienced it!

We might say that Justice is an impossible ideal, but love is very, very real and based squarely in brain chemistry. There's just no getting around that.

As to your claims about Truth, I find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to always be helpful:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

As you can see, there are lots of theories on truth. I'm an empiricist, so for me, nothing is true that can't be verified. Verifiability is a very important component of truth because it is the method by which one distinguishes truth from error. Observation is part of this process.

And to go a bit deeper, I tend to agree with Hume and Quine on a number of things concerning metaphysics and epistemology:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/

(And there are others like Kuhn as well, but later on that...)

I'm a nominalist as well:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/

So, I can discuss concepts with you either scientifically or philosophically. I have degrees in both.

@PFF:

Your argument for Truth is flawed. It commits the logical error of petitio principii ( a.k.a. 'begging the question', or assuming the initial point): "The things that these people are giving their lives for must be true, because if they weren't true, people wouldn't be giving their lives for them." It is a classic example of circular reasoning.

Consider the implications if your argument were valid. You would have proved that any concept that anyone anywhere has ever fought and died for is true. Nazism, Legalism, slavery...

'Truth' to a scientist consists of that which can be physically measured and independently, repeatably confirmed. Everything else is 'Speculation'.

Yea, server's definitely slow. My heart definitely jumped into my throat when I imagined I'd have to try to do that post over again, lol.

Oh man, this is an interesting discussion. I kind of regret that I can't post as often as you guys can, because I feel like I'm behind the conversation by a couple of days. To continue:

@ blotonthelandscape. Thanks for the sincerity of that last post. I'm glad that me not being an atheist is not offputting enough that we can't have a discussion on the internet about something that everyone believes in, which is love (pretty universally in this thread at least). I understand that there will always be a suspicion of someone who's not "within the fold" of atheism, but I truly believe that if atheists truly hold the line that reason and logic can prevail, then there should be nothing to fear. For example, suppose GiL HAD made another account and was doing the puppet thing, and you were suspicious. I'd say the best mode of action is continue using logic, because eventually A. He'll leave, being frustrated because he can't reply (if he had to make another account to prove a point, then it's probably true that his position was already pretty weak) B. He'll be changed for the better. The shouting thing is counterproductive, because that's just what the fundamentalist, evangelical Christians do. I truly believe in the power of rationality and logic and Truth to overcome whatever errors would be presented by whoever, and by acting with civility and patience, it's a huge testimony to what rationality brings to the table.

@ Nox. An awesome post. I can definitely tell you've had some training in philosophy, haven't you? This thread keeps getting better, as it's getting play from all the fields of science and even philosophical logic...I'm going to try to keep up, and as your reasoning is really good, I'm going to apologize now because there'll probably be some fallacies (which I hope you'll call me out on)

I see you actually pulled out all the stops and included Truth, Beauty, Justice, and Goodness, as well as talked about Love. I'm sorry that I'm not going to get to all the points (time-related), but the reasoning is sound in every explanation. I'm going to try to keep up with you on the points of Truth, and on Love.

"...truth does not take up physical space in the physical universe. It is not an object that exists. It is merely that which reflects reality, which is in itself not something that exists but an arrangement of those things that do. Truth is a property of a statement, in that the statement reflects reality or does not." Ok, earlier you described Truth as a trait or descriptor, which is echoed in this statement here. Truth does not exist, but only as a descriptor. (Equivalent to saying an adjective does not exist without a noun, pretty much? This I totally agree with)

I'm going to say that I think that Truth, in fact, DOES exist. Why does Truth exist? I'm going to go with an example. You've been keeping up with the events in the Middle East, right? With the protesting and whatnot? Well, in Syria, they're killing the protesters, who are mainly secular protesters, not radical Muslims or anything. (Ok, where are you going with this, PFF? I'm getting there, I'm getting there) People are taking to the streets, and they're willing to die because the believe that their freedom is being infringed upon. These people are followers of the Truth, and they're willing to DIE for that Truth (the truth being that people are meant to be free, to make their own decisions). Now, if Truth was really just a descriptor, and non-existent, these people, quite literally, have died for nothing. Now, I know this isn't a more logical approach to the question, but it's a more common-sense thing (I'm so going to get nailed for this, haha), but does anybody really believe that these people wasted their lives? I also believe that there's Truth out there, and I'm an avid follower of that Truth. I also, like those people, would die defending the Truth. In both of these cases, the Truth seems to be a noun, rather than an adjective. I may have got it wrong here...if Truth was a descriptor in these cases, what would it be describing? (I'm so sorry for the fallacies, I don't know your philosophical background but mine's not very strong)

Ok, now Love. There are two points that you made on love: "As love is a feeling, it does not exist any more or less than any other feeling." and following right after..."What is wrong with concepts. That something is just an idea does not make it worthless." I'm going to talk about both of these points, but I was wondering, aren't these statements actually incompatible? If love is indeed a feeling, isn't it no longer a concept, but something real and actual? Like the feeling of anger, that's not a concept, it's real, and measured, with complicated pathways and the body's reactions, and even discussed as an evolutionary defense mechanism. Maybe love is indeed both a feeling and a concept, and I wouldn't mind actually delving into that further.

1. I would hesitate to say that love is a feeling (or an emotion, as some have also described it). Love is not typically included with what are classically known as feelings, such as anger or sadness or happiness, etc. You can feel angry or sad or happy but not feel "love" (unless you're talking about being a loving mood, maybe). (By the way, this will actually tie into why I don't think love can be a purely hormonal/neurotransmitter response) I'm going to use anger here, in the fight or flight response. While those other feelings are influenced by hormones, e.g. someone pushes you for no reason, brain registers danger, your hormones start flowing so your whole sympathetic system starts going crazy with the blood pumping, sweating, all that jazz. Feelings and emotions are definitely measurable and can be examined, with the responses of the body and the hormones and the lighting up of the different areas in the brain.

Love, however, is not as easy to measure. Maybe when you're "feeling" loving can you measure that, but there is love that is not hormonal as well, isn't there? Take for example, two newlyweds, madly in love. We measure all their biomarkers, and they're definitely, madly in love: brain signals are firing, hearts are beating fast, it's looking good. 40 years later, will those same biomarkers indicate the same thing? All of the biomarkers at this point indicate that, nope, these people are not in love. But they are STILL, in love with each other. (Probably not the best example, but there are many instances where people love with each other, but their hearts are not racing every time they see the object of their affection.) That's the problem with love, it's not an easy thing, as it changes with time and circumstance, and even person to person. If love was indeed a feeling, something that came and went, then you'd have Ursa's argument, which I'll get to soon. (This is a reminder that this whole digression is to distinguish that love is not a feeling or emotion, but something else [BUT WHAT, WHAT THE HELL IS IT?? well, i guess that's the point of this thread]) By the way, I think this may be a reason people say they're not "in love" with their spouses anymore, as they mistake the initial feelings as what love really is, but when that infatuation stage wanes, they assume that since the feelings are gone, so is the love. From most peoples' understanding of love, it's not something that ebbs and wanes like emotions, but is more constant (this is not taking into account the "Ursa argument")

2. I'd also hesitate to say that love is purely an idea or concept. "That love is not in itself a separate thing outside your mind does not mean that your love for your uncle is any less real. It just means it doesn’t exist." This is actually the first statement from anyone that actually says that love doesn't exist, although it is real. Now, if love is indeed real as a concept, but actually non-existent, that would actually put it on the level of things like unicorns and leprechauns. These things are real as concepts, but they don't actually exist. I would say that love is different from these, and greater. The difference between a unicorn and love is that a unicorn is an actual idea that springs from the mind, our minds created the unicorn. Love, I would say, is NOT an idea that comes from the mind; rather, it existed thousands of years ago with our ancestors, the very first time anyone loved anyone else. It wasn't a concept, it was something natural that happened. It wasn't something thought about, in fact, I'd argue that it likely came into existence once we became rational (maybe even before? hmm interesting...).

Yea, I'm writing this late so I don't think this may be the most solid post I've made yet, but let me know what you think. By the way, I really admire your arguments, Nox, you're definitely a philosophy professor or something, aren't you?

@Jeremiah:

Yeah, I'm seeing lots of server errors, and most of yesterday's forum posts appear to have vanished. Let's see if this one gets through...

If something transcends physical detection, how would you even know it exists, and why would you suspect its existence in the first place?

@Ursa

If you are not using the word in its standard sense, you have not defined what you mean by it. It is therefore impossible to make sense of your post and attempt to answer it.

I thought I defined it when I said:

transcendent, and by this I assume you mean beyond the physical

I think this what most people and the OP had in mind when they use the word transcendent. Something that transcends physical detection. It seems to be just a convient place to stash stuff we don't currently know about. At least that is the point I was attempting (apparently poorly) to make.

And yeah, the adult pair-bonding concept of love has that element of sexuality but we do kind of consider that part and parcel for that particular flavor of love. And that kind of attraction clearly has roots in the physical which is where I was trying to go with that.

PS - Anyone else getting a lot of server errors here visiting UF the last couple days?

@Justice Gustin:

Regarding switches in the brain, you have to remember that the brain is all about training. Repeated exposure to X trains the brain in how to deal with X in the future. On a practical level, for something like love for a particular person, this means that it is easier to turn on the "love" response once your brain is trained to love that person.

So maybe, at its core, love is a learning experience. You become primed to feel all warm and fuzzy towards a particular person, which alters your behavior towards them. The response threshold lowers over time, but so does the intensity of the response. This is why the love of old married couples tends to burn with a cooler flame than that of newlyweds, which in turn is less intense than two people who have just met and find each other new and exciting.

The love for one's children (storge) and friends (philos) probably shares some underlying mechanisms with adult romantic love, but without the sexual component. Maybe mature romantic love is a combination of eros and philos? The sexual component tends to dominate early interactions between humans who are pair-bonding, although it may not immediately manifest itself as actual sexual behavior.

What can I say? It's complicated, and AFAIK, not yet completely understood. LRA can correct me if I'm wrong here.