Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by TheFrogger, Jun 2, 2017.
Alas, love appears to defined by function, not physicality (ie dopamine, chocolate consumption)
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Why should one exclude the other? I would suggest that viewing the world from the same perspective and experiencing a similar emotional reaction (empathy) would reinforce the production of similar dopamine or endorphins in both parties.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Note: the chemical configuration of dopamine. Hameroff described this chemical as part of the nano-tubular structure.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But if its all about the endorphins, why all the fuss about where you get them from (aside from the obvious that in the "real" world .... which forum posters are known to occasionally inhabit .... it doesn't work)?
But not everybody experiences their real world in the same way. That is the whole point of "empathic response", the ability to "experience" someone else's pain or joy. Laughter increases the production of dopamine.
p.s. sorry for the belated edit of post #22
You are just relying on a series of definitions rendered non-parsimonious in a feeble attempt to link cause and effect.
In this thread alone you have equated the sensation of love with sex and sex with dopamine and dopamine with chocolate consumption. Nobody (as in "nobody in the real world" ... a world in which even forum posters are known to occasionally inhabit) satisfies their need for love through the performance of sex, or their access to dopamine through the exchangeable options of sex or chocolate consumption or whatever absurd combination of relationship you are trying to establish between these terms.
You are just dumbing everything down for the sake of engineering a parsimonious flow chart, which I guess wouldn't be such a problem if you didn't insist that the chart had any bearings on "real world" affairs.
It's worse than beer w/ straw, when she was on the brink of eating a box of spark plugs to prove her point.
In this thread I have proposed that "movement in the direction of optimal parsimony" is a simple fundamental organizational imperative.
Instead of what you call, "dumbing it down", it is you who is looking for some complex magical solution. If humans were the only existing organisms then you might have a case. But life and reproduction appears in millions of different forms, thus the underlying process cannot be very complicated. In fact, as Hazen proposed, life can most probably (inevitably) be found throughout the universe, because synthesis of chemicals is actually very easy.
The Miller-Urey experiment proves that. The problem with that random experiment was that it synthesized too many molecules.
Apparently you still haven't seen the Robert Hazen presentation . Star viewing @ 25:10
Do watch it, this scientist "knows" what he is talking about, and it's not magical or complicated....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No more incomprehensible than following your lead from dopamine production to chocolate consumption to sexual acts to love.
By utilizing dumbed downed definitions not found anywhere in "the real world".
Um .... this is the love drug thread. Are you going to say something further about your ideas of dopamine, chocolate, sex and love or shift the topic to problems you are trying to discuss in a separate thread?
If you have listened closely you will readily see its all connected. Some chemical reactions are parsimonious, while others are not. Love or Hate, Like or Dislike, Symmetry or Asymmetry, Parsimony or Wastefulness are all results of chemical reactions. Dopamine is a "chemical"!
Which brings us back to your dumbed down definitions. Your attempts to correllate acts of love to behaviours, and those behaviours to chemical catalysts is an example of tenacious flippancy rather than parsimonious elegance.
OK, then provide a more erudite substitute for "attraction and repulsion" of atoms forming bio-chemicals and formation of bio-molecules. Magic?
Your problem is that you see things from a human perspective, which is one of the most complicated organisms, but by no means the only complex organism.
I would suggest you start at a more fundamental level of "living organisms", such as a single celled organism. Simplify (dumb it down) and you will see things more clearly.
Your problem is that you are required to dismiss vast swaths of biology (or dress them up in a dumbed down manner that is alien to real world experience) for the sake of subscribing to demagoguery in the name of physics.
I do not require to "fancy dress" any of the sciences (including physics) to house my world view.
That is the difference.
So you want to isolate the discussion of "the love drug" to the examples of amoebas in order to see things more clearly?
And this will take you further away from tenacious flippancy?
Nothing in my perspective requires alien or mystical causalities.
If you had watched my link to Hameroff, you would have seen that "making love" (reproduction between two single celled organisms) already happens at the simplest level.
Yes, because nano-tubulars in single celled organisms already contain dopamine. Your tenacious flippant retorts has shed zero light on the subject. There!
Why are you playing chess with a pigeon?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, if only we could have a chess match!
But it is a actually a good metaphor. I may not be a master, but I do know several great opening gambits, to at least start the game in the right direction. The Ruy Lopez (offensive) and Queens (defensive) gambits are my favorites...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I never said it did.
I said it required dumbed down terms that bear limited correlation to the real world.
Which then begs the question what "other-wordly" dimension you are channelling to draw a connection between sex and love.
And this means they love each other?
Instead of having limited correlation to the real world, they are common denominators in the real world.
Before you speculate on the apparent differences, look at what everything has in common and how this commonality is able to express itself in nearly unlimited ways.
If dopamine is associated with "improved affinity" toward another person, then why should the single celled organism which also possesses dopamine in it's sensory system not be able to "experience" a feeling of symmetry and comfort? The rest is just a Darwinian evolutionary process of becoming more complex.
But oddly it still takes the same amount of anesthesia to put a mouse to sleep, i.e. render unconscious of feelings (de-activate dopamine reaction), without affecting other internal automotor responses as it does a human.
So, all organisms which posses a large number of dopamine in their system (regardless where they exists) will exhibit the same chemical reactions and are subject to anesthesia. Ever heard of a "local"? It de-activates the dopamine signaling system locally. That's why you do not "feel" anything.
I am channelling the "same-worldly variable dimensions" at "earlier times", and ongoing as we speak. The number 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions on earth alone is trivial in your mind?
Define love. If your definition is different from mine, then out with it. Don't keep me in suspense.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dopamine is a denominator of what, exactly?
If there is something in the link you wish to draw my attention to, it is not apoarent.
This is an instance where you are dumbing it down. High levels of dopamine are also associated with anti-social behaviour, psychotic episodes and a host of other mental maladies. IOW your premise of "dopamine=yay!" is incorrect.
Because dopamine doesn't universally correllate to feelings of symmetry, etc.
And even if it did (which it doesn't ) correlation does not equal causation.
So how do you propose to take this information and not fall down any of the type I or II errors laid out before you?
Is talking as if you can definitively count the chemical reactions on earth supposed to allay our fears you are relying on fabricated narratives or confirm them?
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me prov'd,
I never writ, nor no man ever lov'd.
Drugs are produced. Alcohol is a waste product produced by yeast: it consumes sugar and secretes alcohol. I will contend that all drugs are waste products produced by the consumption of other chemicals.
I remember reading years ago that some foods contain ecstasy. E-numbers. I know coca-cola used to contain cocaine. In my opinion the only drugs worth taking are alcohol (despite it being a waste product), nicotine, and cannabis (although I cannot obtain it anymore.)
A fundamental chemical transmitter which indicates the state of parsimony or tries to achieve it. It does not act alone, there are at least five other chemicals associated with the "effects" of dopamine on the organisms state of feelings of parsimony.
Apparently you missed the highlighted (by me) part of the Abstract from the link.
Uncontrolled high levels of dopamine may have adverse affects in the direction of gratification. If you have information to the contrary, show it now!
That's wrong, Dopamine is clearly causal as a trnasmitter of information.
Seems to me the result is always in the direction of greater satisfaction.
You haven't proven anything with your link. "I'm still standing"
It has nothing to do with Dopamine which has been proven to exist has been proven to exist and is already present in even the simplest organisms.
So now you as "layman" are going to declare that people who have spent lifetimes on the subject are wrong?
You clearly have no idea what Hazen was talking about. I'm betting you haven't watched the clip yet. btw. If you have , you are purposely twisting his words. Nowhere did he claim "definitive counts", except where definite counts were obtained, which allow for educated statistical estimates.
And this is the scientific proof I asked you for? Poetry?
I am still waiting for something scientific. I'm afraid you are going to have to inform yourself a little better on the subject.
A poetic pigeon? I'd like to see that
Separate names with a comma.