Love

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

What atheists think is love is only a bio-mechanical reflex to propagate.

Humans are made of tissues and bones which are made of amino acids and proteins which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of subatomic particles which are made of quantum phenomenon. In short, humans are only clouds of condensed particle-waves.

Clouds of condensed particles waves are not capable of love because particle-waves themselves cannot love (to suggest otherwise is to suggest a theory of pantheism).

No thing is capable of producing any thing greater than itself. Five cannot come from three without an outside operator. So too the material universe cannot create love from emotionless matter and energy and if there is no outside Operator then nothing greater exists beyond what we sense: unloving particle-waves.

"Love" is merely a descriptor assigned by those who cannot apprehend or are scared by natural phenomenon. The same way primitive man conjured stories of angry spirits to be able to psychologically contend with volcanoes and hurricanes so too did he invent "love" to describe mating/parenting instincts.

With such an understanding of the universe I defy anyone to prove otherwise without resorting to some "I think/believe/hope/have faith" statements.

[The Night Owl]

What atheists think is love is only a bio-mechanical reflex to propagate.

Um, what gives you the idea that atheists view love as more than an emotion arising from biological processes? Aren't theists the ones who view it as something magical?

[SVPete]

Magic? I'm not aware that Mr. Snuggs calls himself a Pooka.

C. S. Lewis has an interesting representation of the consequences of reducing human thought and emotions to mere biochemical reactions toward the end of That Hideous Strength, which is the third book in the "Space Trilogy". While Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength are connected, in that order, they can also be read individually.

[The Night Owl]

Magic? I'm not aware that Mr. Snuggs calls himself a Pooka.

I don't know what a Pooka is but I haven't had any luck in getting Mr. Snugs to say if he is a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist. Perhaps you could get the information out of him.

[rubliw]

I only pop by here during bouts of boredom, and almost never post - but I thought this was worthy of a reply.

What atheists think is love is only a bio-mechanical reflex to propagate.

Humans are made of tissues and bones which are made of amino acids and proteins which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of subatomic particles which are made of quantum phenomenon. In short, humans are only clouds of condensed particle-waves.

Clouds of condensed particles waves are not capable of love because particle-waves themselves cannot love (to suggest otherwise is to suggest a theory of pantheism).

I think my experiences provides me good reason to think otherwise.

1. I am a cloud of condensed particle waves.
2. I can love
3. Therefore, condensed particles waves can love.

The fact that I can love is pretty self-evident, in the same way that its self-evident that I can be angry.  

No thing is capable of producing any thing greater than itself. Five cannot come from three without an outside operator. So too the material universe cannot create love from emotionless matter and energy and if there is no outside Operator then nothing greater exists beyond what we sense: unloving particle-waves.

See above.  Loving particle waves certainly exist as far as I can tell, so it would appear your argument is incorrect.

And the word "great" here, seems pretty ambiguous.  The numbers analogy ("five cannot come from three") seems to use "great"  as a measure of quantity.  But its not at all clear that if we call love "greater" than material, that in that context it refers to an increase in quantity.  It sounds like it means something else.   I'm not sure what - perhaps you can clarify.

But, if we want to think of love and the universe as quantities, perhaps love is simply a smaller quantity hidden within the quantity of the material universe - and it only is visible when the quantity of the material universe is divided up in certain ways.

"Love" is merely a descriptor assigned by those who cannot apprehend or are scared by natural phenomenon. The same way primitive man conjured stories of angry spirits to be able to psychologically contend with volcanoes and hurricanes so too did he invent "love" to describe mating/parenting instincts.

If "love" is a descriptor that actually refers to something real (and its clear to me that it does), then it exists.   Angry spirits, on the other hand, do not refer to anything real.  So love is not like angry spirits in any way that I can see.  

With such an understanding of the universe I defy anyone to prove otherwise without resorting to some "I think/believe/hope/have faith" statements.

Well, let me pose a question to you.   What properties would existence need, in order for love to exist?  Do you even think it is logically possible for something like love to exist, in some possible universe - a theist universe perhaps?

[The Night Owl]

I think my experiences provides me good reason to think otherwise.

1. I am a cloud of condensed particle waves.
2. I can love
3. Therefore, condensed particles waves can love.

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that we're more than that of which we're made. Even if a person could be broken down into a recipe of sorts what would be missing is the complex and unrecoverable history of interactions which formed and shaped that person in body and mind.

[SVPete]

I don't know what a Pooka is but I haven't had any luck in getting Mr. Snugs to say if he is a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist. Perhaps you could get the information out of him.

Usually I'd recommend a rather humorous classic movie at this point, but your request inclines me otherwise. OTOH, if Mr. Snugs claimed to be a Pooka I might be inclined to believe him.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that we're more than that of which we're made. Even if a person could be broken down into a recipe of sorts what would be missing is the complex and unrecoverable history of interactions which formed and shaped that person in body and mind.

It's not reasonable, it's absolutely unfounded wish-think on your part.

And what Wilbur is peddling is third rate Hinduism. If you were half as smart as you pretend you would have been able to recognize that fact.

[rubliw]

It's not reasonable, it's absolutely unfounded wish-think on your part.

What is unreasonable about it?  Just declaring something as unreasonable is all well and good, but perhaps you can spell why you think so.

And what Wilbur is peddling is third rate Hinduism. If you were half as smart as you pretend you would have been able to recognize that fact.

Well, I haven't spent much time researching or learning about Hinduism, so I could not say.   I will say that I do not believe anything I said is contradictory to atheism.  That is, there is nothing logically contradictory about believing that the sketch of an argument in my post is true, and believing that atheism is true.  Here too, you could be more constructive and actually follow up with actual points of disagreement, instead of a conversation killing declaration.

I should add that its not entirely clear what the overall aim of your challenge is supposed to be.  You seem to waffle back and forth between conflicting ideas.  Are you suggesting love does not exist, or that it does exist, but simply refers to some sort of unremarkable natural phenomena (presumably to facilitate reproduction)?   If love is simply a mundane natural phenomena, are we then supposed to be rationally compelled to view it in some hyper-reductionist, nihilistic light?  Why?

And what about my follow up question... what properties would existence need in order for love to exist - or to be something more than the nihilistic picture you paint of it?  If love is nothing more than a certain type of condensed particle-wave, and is therefore meaningless, what would it need to be, in order to be meaningful?

[The Night Owl]

Haha! I didn't figure out that Rubliw is Wilbur. I am slow.

[The Night Owl]

It's not reasonable, it's absolutely unfounded wish-think on your part.

And what Wilbur is peddling is third rate Hinduism. If you were half as smart as you pretend you would have been able to recognize that fact.

So, what are you? Theist, agnostic, or atheist? I'm starting to sense a reluctance on your part to answer that question.

[rubliw]

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to say that we're more than that of which we're made. Even if a person could be broken down into a recipe of sorts what would be missing is the complex and unrecoverable history of interactions which formed and shaped that person in body and mind.

Yea, I tend to agree.  In contrast to what SB seems to be saying, it is possible for collections of particles to have properties that the individual particles do not have.   So, even if love is not a property that an individual particle can have, its certainly possible that it is a property that certain arrangements of them could have.

[The Night Owl]

What is unreasonable about it?  Just declaring something as unreasonable is all well and good, but perhaps you can spell why you think so.

Well, I haven't spent much time researching or learning about Hinduism, so I could not say.   I will say that I do not believe anything I said is contradictory to atheism.  That is, there is nothing logically contradictory about believing that the sketch of an argument in my post is true, and believing that atheism is true.  Here too, you could be more constructive and actually follow up with actual points of disagreement, instead of a conversation killing declaration.

I should add that its not entirely clear what the overall aim of your challenge is supposed to be.  You seem to waffle back and forth between conflicting ideas.  Are you suggesting love does not exist, or that it does exist, but simply refers to some sort of unremarkable natural phenomena (presumably to facilitate reproduction)?   If love is simply a mundane natural phenomena, are we then supposed to be rationally compelled to view it in some hyper-reductionist, nihilistic light?  Why?

And what about my follow up question... what properties would existence need in order for love to exist - or to be something more than the nihilistic picture you paint of it?  If love is nothing more than a certain type of condensed particle-wave, and is therefore meaningless, what would it need to be, in order to be meaningful?

I can't tell if Mr. S is telling us what he believes or if he's telling us what he thinks materialists should believe or if he's just being pissy. The OP is a jumble... but I think that's by design.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

What is unreasonable about it?  Just declaring something as unreasonable is all well and good, but perhaps you can spell why you think so.

You're the one that claims love exists but no one can supply empirical evidence.

I already described how humanity is little more than bio-mechanical-chemical machinery and the elements those machines are built out of particle waves which are themselves unable possess emotions. This is true and cannot be disputed.

Your retort was to say, "I love, ergo love exists" but I already explained love is only a survival reflex. An organism that lacks an instinct/behavior/reflex to propagate will not propogate and die out. What you call "love" is only a biological accident that allows your species to breed and raise young. It's not love it's a function of the endocrine system.

Well, I haven't spent much time researching or learning about Hinduism, so I could not say.   I will say that I do not believe anything I said is contradictory to atheism.  That is, there is nothing logically contradictory about believing that the sketch of an argument in my post is true, and believing that atheism is true.  Here too, you could be more constructive and actually follow up with actual points of disagreement, instead of a conversation killing declaration.

You and TNO want to make assertions devoid of any empirical observation and you deliberately mis-label natural phenomenon with fanciful terms.

I call it Hinduism but perhaps pantheism is the more accurate term. Pantheism is all = god. The universe is self existing and self-aware. Either by design or by accident that being is splintered into all other beings. As it experiences itself--or sheds its illusions--the lesser beings migrate back into the greater whole.

To claim humans can love is to say they come from a greater whole, formed from the stuff of the universe and that they can love other humans (more stuff from the same universe) and that this "love" is an innate attribute of the stuff that forms them and one day they will cease to be as "individuals" and the stuff from which they were composed will return to the greater quantity from which it came.

I should add that its not entirely clear what the overall aim of your challenge is supposed to be.  You seem to waffle back and forth between conflicting ideas.  Are you suggesting love does not exist, or that it does exist, but simply refers to some sort of unremarkable natural phenomena (presumably to facilitate reproduction)?   If love is simply a mundane natural phenomena, are we then supposed to be rationally compelled to view it in some hyper-reductionist, nihilistic light?  Why?

Yes, because that would be the plain, self-evident truth of the matter.

You forget the flip-side of your so-called life: death

It must be admitted that man is only a long series of accidents. The universe exists wholly by accident with no regard or intention for man's being. The universe would just as soon drop an asteroid on us as give us a pre-biotic soup. Rather than man being a product of love he is a product of death and misery as innumerable hordes of creatures died from starvation, disease, cataclysm, violent struggle and just plain dumb-assery. Man is an accident and transitory. No Thing wanted him, he is not guided by much beyond his stomach and penis working in tandem. Man exists in constant terror of death yet is fated to die. His cities will crumble. His painting will moulder. One day the earth shall wink away as the sun expands and even then the last star will flicker and die as the universe grinds itself into a lukewarm puddle of atomic mush. No Thing will mourn him, judge him, comfort him or even know he was ever here in the first place.

Just because nihilism upsets your fairy tale wish-thinking doesn't make it untrue...it just makes you an escapist.

And what about my follow up question... what properties would existence need in order for love to exist - or to be something more than the nihilistic picture you paint of it?  If love is nothing more than a certain type of condensed particle-wave, and is therefore meaningless, what would it need to be, in order to be meaningful?

In a strictly naturalistic materialist universe?

Nothing. Get used to it.

The onus isn't on me to prove what COULD make love exist because I have already explained love doesn't exist, it is only a name ascribed to a phenomenon of the endocrine system just as "God's wrath" is assigned to explain natural phenomenon more properly labelled "earthquake in Haiti."

In contrast to what SB seems to be saying, it is possible for collections of particles to have properties that the individual particles do not have.   So, even if love is not a property that an individual particle can have, its certainly possible that it is a property that certain arrangements of them could have.

No. No thing can create anything that is not first inherent in its own being. H20 = water and only water and can never equal anything other than water because the elements involved have no other potential. "Love" is not an instrinsic property of the material universe as is mass, valaence, etc.

[The Night Owl]

So, what are you? Theist, agnostic, or atheist? I'm starting to sense a reluctance on your part to answer that question.

{the wind howls as a lone tumbleweed rolls past}

[The Night Owl]

It's not reasonable, it's absolutely unfounded wish-think on your part.

No, it's not wish thinking to say that a human being is more than that of which it's made. A human being can be described as a process which takes place in time and space, right? To suggest, as you have, that a human being is nothing more than the sum of it's parts is tantamount to taking a sort of snapshot of the process that is a human being.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

{the wind howls as a lone tumbleweed rolls past}

I'm a nihilist.

Happy?

Now scientifically refute any point I've made.

No, it's not wish thinking to say that a human being is more than that of which it's made. A human being can be described as a process which takes place in time and space, right? To suggest, as you have, that a human being is nothing more than the sum of it's parts is tantamount to taking a sort of snapshot of the process that is a human being.

A process or an event?

A process leads to some end. An event is a thing that occurs. If there is some end to which human existence is working then please show us your facts and figures to support your assertion.

Humans live and die and from the beginning until the end and all points in between are purposeless. That is the sum of it.

[The Night Owl]

I'm a nihilist.

Happy?

Not really. Do believe that the universe was a created by a god?

[dutch508]

Not really. Do believe that the universe was a created by a god?

Not a gad. The God. The Lord of Hosts. King of Kings. etc etc etc. He also invented the martini.

[rubliw]

It might be helpful to understand you better if state your premesis and conclusions in argument form, without all the cruft.  But, I'll try to address the main themes in your post here.

Does love exist?

Yes.  I'm perfectly happy to say that the term love refers to purely material processes involving the endorcrine system.  I think it could be arguable that love also incorperates patterns of behavior that are independant of what your endocrine happens to be doing at the moment, but in either case - its all fits neatly inside materialism.

I'm also perfectly happy to acknowledge that many people do use the term love to refer to something that isnt real.  So shame on them.  I'm not doing that, however.

So to end this portion of the post on a note agreement, we do seem to both think that the term love refers to a material process, or in your words "a survival reflex".  This is fine.

Can new properties arise that arent inherent in "the being" of its constitutients?

Of course they can, and it should be trivially self-evident.  Forget love and emotion for a second. Can a single h2o molecule scratch its back?  Of course it can't.  They don't even have backs.  Nonetheless, certain arrangements of mostly h2o molecules do have backs and can scratch them quite easily.  There are at least two new properties gained there: a) a back, b) the ability to scratch it.

Can a single h2o molecule think?  Not that we know of.  Nonetheless, certain arrangements of mostly h2o molecules do think. Empirical fact.

Unless you can show otherwise, these counter-examples are fatal to the argument that properties of the whole must be "inherent in the being of its components".  The matter that combines to form the systems we call people, has been here during the entire lifespan of the universe after all - and it certainly hasnt always had the same properties that people have.

As a matter of fact, the argument you have been presenting on this point is a clear-cut, text-book example of a fallacy of division.

Therefore Nihilism, Oh noes!?

As a point of agreement, I will concede that there is no ultimate cosmic purpose.  No Thing (ie creator being) wants us, or created us.  While there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos, purpose and meaning certainly exist, in localized prudential forms.  In fact, unless you commit yourself to an infinite regress, there has to be a termination point for purpose, beyond which it is incoherent to require further purpose (same for meaning).  Yet the question could be easily asked "What is its purpose?", and one would easily have to say "There is no purpose for this thing". That termination point, from where I sit, seems to be the mind of a sentient being.  

Our minds conceive of and move with purpose.  One might even say purpose, like back-scratching, is an emergent property of sentient systems.  So its with no problem what-so-ever, that I say love is meaningful and filled with purpose, to me.  Whether the cosmos agree's, well... I can't see why that even needs to enter into it.

To sum it up, one might say that minds exist for no purpose, but in existing, they certainly gain purpose and meaning.

Question: Can love exist in some possible universe?

I was not restricting you to materialism here.  I was seeing if you think meaningful love can exist in any possible universe, a theistic one included.  In part, this is simply to get a better idea of what exactly you think love is supposed to be.  So how bout it?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You misapplied the fallacy of division and misused the anaology of H2O. H2O can be part of a system that has tactile and motor nerves to feel an itch and scratch it but the balance of that system is simply reacting to stimuli no matter how much it wants to say, "I lo-o-o-ove a good back-scratching."

Tell us: when a bear fights ferociously for her cubs is it "love" or an in-grained biological response to stimuli of a percieved threat to propagation?

[rubliw]

You misapplied the fallacy of division and misused the anaology of H2O. H2O can be part of a system that has tactile and motor nerves to feel an itch and scratch it but the balance of that system is simply reacting to stimuli no matter how much it wants to say, "I lo-o-o-ove a good back-scratching."

But the whole (ie, the system of H20) has gained features (to feel and scratch an itch) that the individual molecule does not have.  One argument you presented suggested clearly that individual particles would have too be able to love, in order for us to love.  In other words, you did suggest that the properties of a whole must be contained in its individual parts (ie. the fallacy of division)

Tell us: when a bear fights ferociously for her cubs is it "love" or an in-grained biological response to stimuli of a percieved threat to propagation?

In the case of a bear, I think it might feel something not unlike love - though probably very different from us.  I would also concede to full blown determinism, but I don't think anything I said is incompatible with it.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

But the whole (ie, the system of H20) has gained features (to feel and scratch an itch) that the individual molecule does not have.  One argument you presented suggested clearly that individual particles would have too be able to love, in order for us to love.  In other words, you did suggest that the properties of a whole must be contained in its individual parts (ie. the fallacy of division)

Stimuli-response cycles are inherent in the parts. What the hell do you think chemistry is?

In the case of a bear, I think it might feel something not unlike love - though probably very different from us.  I would also concede to full blown determinism, but I don't think anything I said is incompatible with it.

"Love"--if it existed--would be a choice. The biological urge to propagate is no different from hunger...do it or die off. Your parents had no more choice to "love" you than a domino has a choice to fall for the actions of the domino that preceded it.

[The Night Owl]

Not a gad. The God. The Lord of Hosts. King of Kings. etc etc etc. He also invented the martini.

Oh, right. The creator of the true world and the apparent world. The one who I suspect Mr. S believes exists. 

[dutch508]

Oh, right. The creator of the true world and the apparent world. The one who I suspect Mr. S believes exists. 

And, ironically, is responsible for your own free will...


[ref: apple in Eden for unwashed heritics]