jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (61 posts)

Who wants some love? :)

  1. vector7 profile image61
    vector7posted 5 years ago

    Prove that love doesn't exist.

    I'll prove it does..



    Oh, and yeah.. I know I'm hated for trying to start a study thread.

    It's cool, that's what love's all about. I still love ya.

    Haters welcome.

    j/k - lol

    You are all welcome, not just the haters. wink






    Anyone like to disprove my claim?

    LOVE is real and beyond science's grasp.



    Good luck with that...

    smile

    1. kess profile image61
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can you prove that some who crittersize your thread actually love you and do not hate you?

      If you are able to do that then you need not prove no other thing.

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not sure I follow exactly.

        They may not love me. [pretty sure I know a few who have told me verbatim]

        You mean prove that one who was pursuing 'tough love' toward me and trying to help indeed loves me?

        I don't really see how that proves or disproves Love itself. Sincerely.

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          When a man learns that those who speaks for him are more detrimental to him rather than those who speaks against him.
          While neither of the two are really his enemy.
          This man is able discover the true nature of love.

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think I'm following your perspective here.

            I like that.

            It certainly has me thinking.

    2. nightwork4 profile image60
      nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i'm don't see how you proved that love is real or isn't real but you are the guy who stated that science has proved the energy is eternal and i'm still chuckling over that one.

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I claimed it. Not explained it. The concept is already well driven into reality and humanity.

        I asked if you could disprove it's existence in light of it's escaping science's grasp.

        This is why you 'chuckling' over a law I did not write doesn't bother me a wink. That is scientists before me that wrote that. And the world collective of scientists accepted it as a Law.

        And I still love ya even though your trying really hard to make me look bad..

        You can keep firing away if you like.

        smile

        1. nightwork4 profile image60
          nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          no actually according to you , you proved it. chuckle , chuckle. you're actually quite easy to prove wrong. if you look at your opening statement you claim "I'll Prove It Does" . next

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Prove isn't past tense chuckles.

            Hence, why you said "proved" which is past participle.

            My statement was "I will prove it" - I'll equaling --> I will (future)

            Any more flimsy bullets?

            This is fun.

            smile

            1. nightwork4 profile image60
              nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol. i love how you turn things around to suit your purpose. you remind me of jim jones or someone like that. as usual you didn't prove what you said you would but that's ok. you'll come up with an excuse or use a play of words to justify it to YOUR liking and bud, every time i read something you wrote i chuckle.

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It's all in black and white for everyone to see.

                Chuckle away chuckles.

    3. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
      Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Claiming that something is beyond the grasp of science is a positive claim.

      Can you prove that science can and will never explain love?

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'll take that as a no to the OP.

        wink

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
          Jesus was a hippyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I can't prove either way but I'm not the one making the assertion smile

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            Of course not, that would be me.

            Considering the content of everyday media including social media, I believe my assertion is pretty solid. I've got plenty to stand on. big_smile

            And yet, science hasn't a leg one.

            I like your little "change the subject" technique.. lol

            I've noticed a couple of old posts where you've got me with that trick.

            smile

    4. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Is there "proof?" No, but there's plenty of evidence. It's not beyond science's grasp. Sure, you can't do a blood test to show you love someone (chemical changes in the loving brain notwithstanding), but there is plenty of evidence people love each other.

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is the physical effect.

        You guys really don't know know the electro-chemical process and what it does? hmm

        Being sincere here.

        And your last sentence seems to be an agreement with me? I think? Based on external evidences you mean?

        smile

    5. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I know I sound like a broken record to you, but until you understand, the same lesson has to be presented to you over and over again.

      If love is real, but beyond science's grasp, YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT!

      Yes, you need to, somehow, prove to us that LOVE is real, and, then you need to prove how it is beyond science's grasp.  And, somehow, you need to use a medium other than science to prove this. Why? Because it is beyond science's grasp.

      Good Luck! smile

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No. I need not. That is well established.

        Science has never yet explained reasoning or cause for selflessness.

        Sacrifice is well observed daily, where have you been?

        Also, I didn't say logic and reasoning cannot provide answers. I mean specifically, atheistic modelled approach of physical elements and the physical approach of explanation will not provide the answer. That is what they call science.

        Love is not physical. Nor is everything that exists physical.

        smile

        1. canadawest99 profile image60
          canadawest99posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry Vector, but you are either wrong or uneducated.   Love and every other emotion is a series of chemical reactions in the brain and subsequent neuron firings. Feelings of good will and love can be reproduced in a lab.  Serotonin is a key element in this emotion.  Soon all will be reproducible in the same fashion.

          Selfishness and compassion are direct Darwinian processes arising from evolution.  Selfishness is self preservation and survival, favoring your bloodlines over all others.   Compassion is a societal response arising from the desire to have good deeds returned to you one day so we can all live in harmony. 

          Again, no god in the equation.

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Regurgitating..

            Vomit + more vomit = lots of vomit.

            Chemicals are signs for your body to use. They communicate dear sir, they don't cause.

            You burn your hand and chemicals are sent via electro-chemical impulses.

            I suppose you'd like to suggest the pain is caused by chemicals there too?

            Your wasting my time ignoring things I've placed into this discussion and repeating outdated theories.

            The language of dna is wrote with chemicals as well, just like you're writing words into that little box. Each combination has a different "meaning" like the combinations of letters we call "words" which also have "meaning."

            It's a communication tool. Not the cause for the message being sent..

            Essay.

            Can we please clean the vomit and refrain from reproducing like material through article-spinner methods?

            smile

            1. canadawest99 profile image60
              canadawest99posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Vector, unfortunately, there is only one logical course of action for you and that is to immediately contact your local political representative and let him know you have not received a proper, science based education that others in the world are receiving.   Maybe you can catch up quickly then join the modern enlightened world.  Good luck.

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Mounds of facts do not equal logical thinking 99. And your conclusion is premature regarding me, as is also the case with your argument.

                Please stick to the subject if you are so intelligent.

                Addressing the points I made would be a decent start.

                smile

          2. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            PS: Lab reproductions are false stimulations rendering the signal being sent artificially. This explains exactly jack except they can fool the physical apparatus of the human body, and/or the subconscious.

            And selflessness is not compassion.

            Selflessness - which you ignored - has no desire for repayment.

            Nice attempt to define something completely irelevant to my argument.

            smile

            1. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yep, I guess that proves, categorically, that God, through His son Jesus Christ is creator of the universe, and love is the "special" magic that He, alone, produced for His children.

              Because it says so in the bible...I believe...because it says so in the bible...I believe...because it says so in the bible...I believe...because it says so in the bible....

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I said nothing about any of that. big_smile

                Thanks for showing everyone what REALLY runs through your mind in spite of the subject at hand.

                You're so far out I'd say the ballpark is no longer in view for you sir.

                Just AWESOME........

                lol lol lol

                1. getitrite profile image81
                  getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You mean God didn't dunnit?  Wow, you really did start a thread just to debate the properties of love?  And, I suppose, just for the sake of expanding your understanding of the different phenomena in our physical universe.  I applaud you for your zeal and quest for knowledge.

                  I'm really glad that you are not starting from the conclusion that "GODDUNNIT"

                  I'm curious to see what the final conclusion to this fact finding debate will be.

                  1. vector7 profile image61
                    vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh my goodness.. lol

                    You can be aggrevating but sometimes you slap my giggle button hard and just crack me up.

                    Most of my questions are rhetorical, as I like to be aware of the outcome before proceeding to make a fool of myself.

                    If I ask one that I don't know the answer to, it's usually fairly obvious and more than likely about the person rather than the subject.

                    I hold the conclusion already. And please don't continue repeating yourself, you have no clue what is envisioned in my mind at the moment buddy. lol

                    smile

        2. getitrite profile image81
          getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And, of course, you have evidence to back this claim.

          Love is the result experienced from a chemical reaction in the body, so its origins are physical...like hate, envy, sorrow, delirium, confusion, anger, and fear.

          If you can't accept a scientific basis for LOVE, then you can't accept a scientific basis for the others either.

          Of course, you could go right on believing in whimsical, magical, invisible realities...which explains, absolutely, nothing!

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Still not addressing what chemicals ARE little fella.

            So the chemicals cause the lust for another person?

            Or is the cause not the direct result of a thought pattern that stimulates the correct signals [ie-chemicals] to flow as in the case of fetishes?

            The cause is the action the eye perceived by the observed person, a flash of a foot in the wierd fetish case.. NOT by some chemical - the chemical came from the thoughts TRIGGERED BY another person's foot..

            I don't even know why I'm attempting to explain this to you.

            It's not that hard to understand communication, language, and systems....

            I think I'll refrain from entertaining any ignorance here forth.

            roll lol

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    Sure.  Your statement is that "love exists" AND that "love is beyond science's grasp"

    To prove anything, you must have a definition of it first - define love as the presence of certain chemicals in the brain.  To prove the negative of a future event, one must also either have infinite time or accept partial evidence as proof of a possibility - the latter will be necessary as we do not have infinite time.

    The first part of the premise is not in contention and is accepted as true.

    Science can quite accurately detect those chemicals in the brain that produce the "feel good" feeling we commonly denote as "love"  Therefore it is not beyond the grasp of science, and the second half of the premise is false.

    1. vector7 profile image61
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Chemicals in the brain don't explain the meanings conveyed by them.

      The chemicals are communicative signs that are used as language to the brain. The word love doesn't explain the meaning of the word itself any more than chemicals used as language explain the meaning conveyed by them.

      That is an outdated approach and excludes completely the understanding of how chemicals are used as communicative tools in the brain.

      The chemicals are not the meaning or the cause. They are a tool of the electro-chemical machine called the brain, just as these words aren't the cause for my reply but are a tool called english language [ie-communicative signs] by which we convey meaning through the social system, which works parallel in comparison to your brain.

      Nice try on "the chemicals cause it" though. I've did many a night my share of homework.

      wink

  3. profile image0
    jomineposted 5 years ago

    Vector7 wrote "Who wants some love?"
    If its cheap, I'll take a kilo. Or is it litre? Em! On second thoughts, give me a dozen.

    1. vector7 profile image61
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol...

  4. tussin profile image61
    tussinposted 5 years ago

    You should read up on neuroscience and psychology.  There is in fact a real, chemical basis for our feelings, including love.  As regards your question, "Who wants some love?" I have plenty in my life thank you very much, no need to deplete your supplies on my behalf.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image25
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      vector7

      For you, it's sound like there is a fine line between Hate and Love. I did not read anyone here expressing their hate for you, just your lack of understanding of your topics.

      Love is the most important behavior in the World. For example, I love a guy like born again GW Bush, because he needs all the love he can get.

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't just love you Castle, I like you.. lol

        You make me laugh all the time...

        smile

    2. vector7 profile image61
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The title isn't the "to be addressed" subject, although it seems many feel the need to do so for some reason.

      I know very well of the studies you're referencing, and have sifted through them thoroughly, but you're lacking, and I'm not going to repeat what I've already explained.

      It's there in black and white, easy to read, simple to understand. Stating "your wrong" has made no shift in reasoning toward your stance.

      It's only been proven you didn't understand the content.

      I didn't write the books, I just read them and put the pieces together.

      smile

      1. nightwork4 profile image60
        nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        strange how it's only you on here that seem to think what you state is simple to understand. chuckling again. any more misunderstandings that us simpletons can't grasp from the great vector 7.

        1. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Seems your attention is misdirected towards me again.

          I'm not the only one. Most who understand it refuse to explain it because of what your displaying right now.

          It's not my wit that matters. It's my sincerety.

          Like my new shades?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image25
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Your sincere, it's just you have limited thinking coming from a one-sided group and point of view in life.

            Oneness will never be achieve by one World Religion, many kinds of (Hitler like) groups have tried over ruling everyone throughout our human world history

            1. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well adolf never REALLY believed in Christianity Castle.. lol - Mass murdering can't be justified with the account of Christ's doctrine in the Gospels, or any of the Bible for that matter. wink

              And I admit my thinking is limited, as is every human beings, otherwise I wouldn't feel the need to discuss. Believe it or not, although I haven't announced it to the world prior, you've taught me a number of things. What group on what side are you referring?

              smile

          2. nightwork4 profile image60
            nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            what?why is it that you can never actually back up what you say but rather you seem to want to degrade others.as for your sincerety, surely you jest.but like i said , you love to babble but you have extremely limited knowledge.i thought perhaps you might be worth debating with but sadly another disappointment. ciao

            1. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Quote the degrading comment.

              You accuse a lot, and address the OP very little.

              It's getting somwhat silly.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image25
                Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hitler was born a Catholic and died still a member of the church, his Nazi troops wore :God is with US. America fought Germany because it was their job to own the World and they printed money with :In God we Trust: The America printed off too much money like toilet paper, and now the world dose not trust them policing them, and they are losing the faith

                1. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Government never believe in the crap they spew anyhow. They are the most corrupt grouping of people on the planet.

                  Power can control you if you get more than your able to handle in a world with temptation to do evil with it.

                  The gov'ts are the primary examples for the above statement.

                  Have you noticed just how many outright blatent lies are recorded on visual media [ video ] from Obama's mouth?

                  It's DISGUSTING the bs they pull. Lie here lie there.. lies in the open everywhere.

                  He even admitted out his own mouth the states wasn't his birth country. Yep, it's on video too. Uploaded to youtube like hundreds of his other screw ups.

                  They "hide" behind the goodness of Christ and the Father which He taught of as being God. They don't believe in it. They use it like a cult leader does to kill people by twisting things for their personal gain.

                  smile

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image25
                    Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's the predominately Religious people who elect presidents and elect to go to War. :Onward Christian soldier as marching as to war: and :Fight the good fight: and all that ungraceful junk

  5. alisha4u profile image59
    alisha4uposted 5 years ago

    Love does exist....and I don't think we need a proof for that...
    Those who are eager to prove it doesn't, are probably wasting their time, energy and Internet connection.... wink

  6. alisha4u profile image59
    alisha4uposted 5 years ago

    Love does exist....and I don't think we need a proof for that...
    Those who are eager to prove it doesn't, are probably wasting their time, energy and Internet connection.... wink

    1. vector7 profile image61
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am wasting their time to some degree within this page aren't I? lol

      I'm just testing some of my own theories. The subject is just bait.. wink

      1. alisha4u profile image59
        alisha4uposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Good... Carry on then...

        1. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes ma'am.

          salute

  7. tajman profile image80
    tajmanposted 5 years ago

    I think that it depends on what you mean by "proof" and as well "love." It's key to the discussion.

    If you talk about love as it's portrayed typically, then you can hook a person up to some instruments and check their bio stats, measure brain activity in certain areas or whatever else medical science does to  indicate response to "stimuli" and have someone they care for deeply enter the room.  You can call that a "proof" because of how the definition was made.

    Scientific proof is really very well documented observation.  I hypothesize on what I believe is correct, then conduct experiments and observe how closely my hypothesis aligns with my observation.

    To prove love, we need to define love, i.e. it's characteristics, and then design the methodology to prove it (experiment, observation).

    So first - what is love?

  8. vector7 profile image61
    vector7posted 5 years ago

    "Too many wolve's and not enough people keeping it real"

    -Castlepaloma

    lol, this is why you're cool Castle..

    You're right, there aint enough people keeping it real.

  9. knolyourself profile image58
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago
 
working