Is falling in love just a chemical reaction or not

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThmtwJz.png
Click to expand...
..
 
Love is a poetic concept and fundamentally all poetry lies. If it didn't lie or mislead it wouldn't be poetic. Ultimately it is considered sad if you can't take hold of the lies available to you and use them to dull the unrelenting pain of existence.
 
OP, are you asking about love at first sight? Is the question, "why should I pursue a relationship if I don't immediately feel love for a person"?
 
As someone in a committed loving relationship..

Of course it's a chemical reaction, and a reaction to stimuli that indicates the possibility of successfully producing healthy offspring with that person.

The fuck else would it be... Magic?
 
ugaboga232 said:
Oxytocin upstream of Dopamine! If there isn't dopamine, it ain't worth it

(oxytocin is really just a neuromodulator that acts globally according to one theory in social connections/bonding so its important in love but also factors into pup recall and other fun mother/daughter type things).
Click to expand...

sure, but it's still reductionist. Like saying sugar is just as addictive as cocaine because it can be demonstrated in rats due to dopamine.
 
In some ways yes.

but it's not just neuro transmitters being released or hormones. There are also memories plus some other stuff I'm sure.

Is it a mental state in your mind in your brain?

Yes.
 
Crunched said:
OP, are you asking about love at first sight? Is the question, "why should I pursue a relationship if I don't immediately feel love for a person"?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about that hormonal reaction which can be based on those most shallow of reasons, because your genes want you to procreate. Those feelings that could lead you to cheat with a coworker, or sleep with someone you really shouldn't sleep with, or lead into a perfect or mutually destructive relationship, even though there was no way of knowing up front whether you were a good fit.

I don't know, I haven't really experienced it in a long time, so I wouldn't know really. Plus I'm sort of drunk so I can't really express myself properly
 
A Fish Aficionado said:
sure, but it's still reductionist. Like saying sugar is just as addictive as cocaine because it can be demonstrated in rats due to dopamine.
Click to expand...

Haha I know, im working toward a neuro phd but was just poking fun that most of the rush/addiction of pretty much anything is dopamine even if oxytocin is the pop science love chemical (some fun reductionism never hurt anyone but yea the brain is absurdly complicated and neurotransmitters do different things everywhere).
 
I remember someone saying that if you want to find someone you find really hot unattractive in 5 seconds flat, imagine them taking a dump. Unless you are of a scatological preference, it works. That jedi mind trick you can thank the midichlorians for.
 
I kind of feel like love is a force. Kind of like gravity for conscious entities.

I mean you can be a complete reductionist about it if you want though, however I do think you'd be missing out on a lot. Both on an intellectual level and a personal one.
 
hydrophilic attack said:
Yes, but there is a very specific feeling or chemical reaction you feel (which I haven't truly felt since I was 16) which is conventionally called falling in love
Click to expand...

I doubt what you felt when you were 16 was love, probably more infatuation. Everything you are talking about attraction, mutual respect, etc. sounds more like love.

hydrophilic attack said:
I'm talking about that hormonal reaction which can be based on those most shallow of reasons, because your genes want you to procreate. Those feelings that could lead you to cheat with a coworker, or sleep with someone you really shouldn't sleep with, or lead into a perfect or mutually destructive relationship, even though there was no way of knowing up front whether you were a good fit.

I don't know, I haven't really experienced it in a long time, so I wouldn't know really. Plus I'm sort of drunk so I can't really express myself properly
Click to expand...

That shit ain't love buck-o.
 
You shoulda been like "more specifically, it's a chemical reaction humans evolved over millions of years solely to increase the chances of procreation and thereby further the species"
 
Love vs. Lust, OP.

Love is earned. It's a reasoned attachment.

Lust, or whatever else you want to call it, is the irrational chemical reaction.
 
SixMachine said:
I remember someone saying that if you want to find someone you find really hot unattractive in 5 seconds flat, imagine them taking a dump. Unless you are of a scatological preference, it works. That jedi mind trick you can thank the midichlorians for.
Click to expand...

Hmm still pretty hot and I'm not into scat.
 
ugaboga232 said:
Haha I know, im working toward a neuro phd but was just poking fun that most of the rush/addiction of pretty much anything is dopamine even if oxytocin is the pop science love chemical (some fun reductionism never hurt anyone but yea the brain is absurdly complicated and neurotransmitters do different things everywhere).
Click to expand...

ah, gotcha.
 
Alienous said:
Love vs. Lust, OP.

Love is earned. It's a reasoned attachment.

Lust, or whatever else you want to call it, is the irrational chemical reaction.
Click to expand...

It's all chemical reactions and chemical reactions are pretty rational by definition. The question is what is the rationale behind them?
 
It's a chemical reaction in the way that almost everything is, sure. But we can still assign meaning to it. It doesn't mean it's empty or cold or meaningless.
 
xxracerxx said:
I doubt what you felt when you were 16 was love, probably more infatuation. Everything you are talking about attraction, mutual respect, etc. sounds more like love.
Click to expand...

But I'm talking about infatuation I guess. (It's sort of tricky because I'm talking about the Swedish expression "vara kär i" which is commonly translated as "be in love with" when "being infatuated With" would be a better translation of what it actually means. We have another expression for "loving someone": "att älska någon"

I tried to express this difference by saying "falling in love" rather than "being in love"
 
hydrophilic attack said:
But I'm talking about infatuation I guess. (It's sort of tricky because I'm talking about the Swedish expression "vara kär i" which is commonly translated as "be in love with" when "being infatuated With" would be a better translation of what it actually means. We have another expression for "loving someone": "att älska någon"

I tried to express this difference by saying "falling in love" rather than "being in love"
Click to expand...
It neatly translates to English as "crush" and "love".
 
Everything is a chemical reaction. Me moving my fingers to type this is multiple chemical reactions. That's why chemistry is the central science of all science. Plus, a chemistry degree looks really good on all applications.
 
SourShoes said:
Everything is a chemical reaction. Me moving my fingers to type this is multiple chemical reactions. That's why chemistry is the central science of all science. Plus, a chemistry degree looks really good on all applications.
Click to expand...

I have a degree in chemistry. But even so, I will still admit that chemistry is just applied physics, which would make physics the central science of all science? Sorry for going off topic
 
Yes, but so is literally everything you've ever experienced and everything you ever will.

Pain is just a chemical reaction too. Next time some cynical wannabe philosopher starts with that "love is just a chemical reaction," stab them in the leg.
 
Farsi said:
If Love was in the form of a drug

I would be RIP overdose right now
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for... Give it 10-20 years and it will certainly be turned into something resembling a drug (check out thync for a shitty commercial proof of concept).
 
And video games are just states of voltage on highly integrated circuitry.

Thanks to emergence, the total is more than just the sum of its parts.
 
It is a chemical reaction, but that doesn't mean you do not to have it set in motion. I've only been in love twice and I'm 31. I've deeply cared about people, but it wasn't love, which one can be confused over.
 
hydrophilic attack said:
But you can feel lust without being infatuated. I lust for most attractive women I see, but I'm not "in love" or "infatuated" with them
Click to expand...

You're equating infatuation with love. It's not the same thing.

It's entirely possible that what you thought was "love" in the past was not really "love". Especially since it was way back when you were 16.

From my vantage point, you have a very twisted definition of love.

Kurtofan said:
you never became attracted to someone just like that?
Click to expand...

See above. Immediate attraction/infatuation/lust for a person and love aren't really the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Pistacchio Diarrhea Love Triange. Or how my life falls apart
38
1K
Days like these... replied
With Love, Meghan (Netflix) is everything I dreamed of and more
44
3K
Days like these... replied
This is not a April Fool's 2025 thread
0
282
San Dan Glokta replied
Some dude just installed a defibrillator in our office
2
54
2K
NeoGiffer replied
Why is Led Zeppelin music not in Vietnam War movies?
24
1K
ClanOfNone replied
Top Bottom