(May 4, 2013 at 4:00 am)homocidlefreak Wrote: I'm sorry but this is wrong. The feeling of love is a chemical reaction in the brain.
Again, I am going to attempt to explain something that I perceive to be beyond the scope of reason via the natural use of English language (which is, by definition, governed by reason).
Saying "the feeling of love is a chemical reaction in the brain" is a very simplistic explanation for an exceedingly complex philosophical topic; it is a statement from a rationalist perspective, which I view as utterly inadequate. We can supplement rationalism with empiricism and include the scientific method to make sense of love from a material reductionist perspective. For example, scientists in the field of cognitive/imaging neuroscience have utilised functional magnetic resonance imaging devices to demonstrate that there are neural correlations (mainly the neurotransmitters dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and the hormone oxytocin) when an individual is experiencing love. This is about as far as science takes us as regards providing an explanation for "how love works".
In terms of viewing this from a wider perspective, evolutionary biologists are generally puzzled as to why love actually exists. Love and altruism appear to have absolutely no bearing on the propagation of DNA and, therefore, seem to be absolutely superfluous; the propagation of DNA is "the meaning of life" from an evolutionary perspective. Richard Dawkins stated in one of his interviews: "I fully accept that science cannot explain love" (I will provide a link to the YouTube video if you wish) and I completely agree. To me, love is something that goes beyond the scope of reason, the scientific method and rational language.
