|
|
Post by gmd52 on Jan 12, 2014 19:05:15 GMT -5
For your thoughts......Came across this in a book I have been reading by Randy Wayne White, a noted SW Fla. writer.
"Love"....is not a condition, it is a dilemma,,,,it is chemically induced; created and maintained by the little understood and complex chemistry of the brain....."
I'm a very basic, and pragmatic person, ruled not by emotion, but what can be proven scientifically. I'm sorry that's my training and upbringing. The brain rules our existence.....allows us to breathe, smell, move our fingers, walk, and be able to sit here and write this....it makes the heart beat, muscles contract, and so forth. It is also the center where our emotions are formed and stored. thus, it is not the heart that breaks, but the brain that short-circuits. We all fall in and out of love, and feel the love of parents and friends......but it's the mind, and not the heart that goverens these feelings. It's also the mind that wills the body back to health, and lets us know when something is wrong. It is the chemistry, and cells of the brain that warns us through that 6th sense, It is one of the last of the Natural worlds great mysterys that has yet to be solved!.......We all have a core of beliefs that guide us through life, and dictate our sucesses and failures. But I am wondering how to explain the formation of these beliefs, and does the brain and the mind also govern our spirtual make up......Thanks......Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by crispin on Jan 12, 2014 20:35:51 GMT -5
If I were to discuss this with the author of this quote then my first question would be: how are you distinguishing between the definitions of "conditions" and "dilemmas?" I think the first part of the quote is the author simply playing with semantics. It seems pretty clear that in the second half of the quote he is stating: Love is nothing more then a chemical interaction with cells that produce signals in the brain.
I have spent many hours contemplating this and even more time discussing it with patients. To help break things into manageable parts I usually start by differentiating between "love" and "true love." I define "true love" as the concept that there is only one specific person that is meant for each of us in life. When we find that person it is "true love" and will last forever. I completely disagree with this. I think that "true love" is a chemical reaction in the brain. There is that saying that "Losing the first love is always the hardest." I believe this is because the chemical reaction creates a mini-form of psychosis in regards to one's life, in that, one's life will always be happy if they are with one's true love. Those chemical feelings do not last forever. When the ruse finally ends it is devastating for first time lovers. However, they all go on to recover in time. I am very happily married to my wife (most of the time.) However, I am absolutely sure there are a couple of other girlfriends I have had previously that I could have married and lived a very happy life with. Why didn't I marry them? Timing. I knew that undergrad, med school, and the first couple years of residency were not the right time for me to get married. Most of the people I knew who were married prior to med school or residency ended up getting divorced. It is very difficult for a marriage to survive that kind of stress. So, in essence, "true love" is a chemical condition.
Moving on. Is there more to "love" then a chemical interaction. Well, that determines how one defines love. I always encourage my patients to define love for themselves. Most of them have a very difficult time with this. I personally define love as the following: Being willing to put somebody else's well being above my own and that other person willing to do the same for me.
In examining the brain I refer back to the default brain. People who have suffered brain damage or who develop dementia revert back to a "default" brain. The undeveloped brain of a human is violent in nature. It is hypersexual, aggressive, and narcissistic. It is unable to love (by my definition.) However, the chemical interactions in the default brain are the same as those of the proper functioning brain. So, my definition of love is not based on a chemical interaction alone. Whatever structures get compromised by brain damage may relate to my definition of love. However, studies that have examined the brain have shown very little correlation between what type of damage occurs and what cognitive functions get limited. I have read 1000s of CT scans and MRIs. I have seen scans with tremendous atrophy in the brain but walked into the room and talked to a totally aware and cognizant person. I have also seen the opposite. A patient has a totally normal CT scan and they are completely demented on interview.
With all of this in mind, I believe that "love" is more then a chemical interaction or a structural part of the brain. It is a function of one's soul.
Crispin
|
|
|
|
Post by worldtalker on Jan 13, 2014 9:00:05 GMT -5
Love isn't SOME THING,Love is SOMEONE.
God Bless
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by worldtalker on Jan 23, 2014 15:47:54 GMT -5
If I were to discuss this with the author of this quote then my first question would be: how are you distinguishing between the definitions of "conditions" and "dilemmas?" I think the first part of the quote is the author simply playing with semantics. It seems pretty clear that in the second half of the quote he is stating: Love is nothing more then a chemical interaction with cells that produce signals in the brain. I have spent many hours contemplating this and even more time discussing it with patients. To help break things into manageable parts I usually start by differentiating between "love" and "true love." I define "true love" as the concept that there is only one specific person that is meant for each of us in life. When we find that person it is "true love" and will last forever. I completely disagree with this. I think that "true love" is a chemical reaction in the brain. There is that saying that "Losing the first love is always the hardest." I believe this is because the chemical reaction creates a mini-form of psychosis in regards to one's life, in that, one's life will always be happy if they are with one's true love. Those chemical feelings do not last forever. When the ruse finally ends it is devastating for first time lovers. However, they all go on to recover in time. I am very happily married to my wife (most of the time.) However, I am absolutely sure there are a couple of other girlfriends I have had previously that I could have married and lived a very happy life with. Why didn't I marry them? Timing. I knew that undergrad, med school, and the first couple years of residency were not the right time for me to get married. Most of the people I knew who were married prior to med school or residency ended up getting divorced. It is very difficult for a marriage to survive that kind of stress. So, in essence, "true love" is a chemical condition. Moving on. Is there more to "love" then a chemical interaction. Well, that determines how one defines love. I always encourage my patients to define love for themselves. Most of them have a very difficult time with this. I personally define love as the following: Being willing to put somebody else's well being above my own and that other person willing to do the same for me. In examining the brain I refer back to the default brain. People who have suffered brain damage or who develop dementia revert back to a "default" brain. The undeveloped brain of a human is violent in nature. It is hypersexual, aggressive, and narcissistic. It is unable to love (by my definition.) However, the chemical interactions in the default brain are the same as those of the proper functioning brain. So, my definition of love is not based on a chemical interaction alone. Whatever structures get compromised by brain damage may relate to my definition of love. However, studies that have examined the brain have shown very little correlation between what type of damage occurs and what cognitive functions get limited. I have read 1000s of CT scans and MRIs. I have seen scans with tremendous atrophy in the brain but walked into the room and talked to a totally aware and cognizant person. I have also seen the opposite. A patient has a totally normal CT scan and they are completely demented on interview. With all of this in mind, I believe that "love" is more then a chemical interaction or a structural part of the brain. It is a function of one's soul. Crispin
LOVE is of the soul,we ALL need LOVE,how can one give what one NEEDS? |
|
|
|
Post by crispin on Jan 25, 2014 6:41:48 GMT -5
Brother Worldtalker,
In all parts of the world love is now intermingled with hate. Love is of the soul but the soul is a purity above love. Love is given without being asked. Love is given but is not granted a choice as to be given. Love is never taken but it is not given freely. It is given because it is love.
Crispin
|
|
|
|
Post by worldtalker on Jan 25, 2014 9:20:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BC1969 on Jan 25, 2014 10:03:39 GMT -5
For what it is worth, I follow The Christ on love, I love everybody, I may not like somebody, but I still give love freely, for without love what else do we have ?
It is becoming painfully obvious though most of the world loves hate, since it is a very easy path to walk to live in hate, to love takes effort.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by crispin on Jan 25, 2014 19:48:48 GMT -5
Love and Hate can be found in every corner of the world. Do not let the hate of others bring you down to their misery. "All we need is love. Love is all we need." Beatles
|
|
