plornive
New member
I was about to agree with you and declare that we are talking about different things, but I'm not so sure.PIGEON-RAT said:Love isn't a mutating social construction. It's always the same feeling. How people want to view it may mutate, but love is the result of physical matters in the brain. It's no coincidence that heartbreak feels incredibly similar to depression. They both depend on the action of serotonin in the brain. And anti-depressives will also reduce the capacity to love.
Viewing the chemistry behind much of our thoughts, actions, and feelings isn't overly reductionist. It doesn't devalue the importance of love whatsoever. But it surely can help the heartbroken realize what is gripping them.
The satiation of hunger has been about the same for the last 10 thousand years. There's probably something regarding "love" which has remained neurochemically the same during that time, but I think this thing developed in the presence and interaction of social interaction. I also don't think we have always had a name for "love" and ideas are not feasibly measured on a neurochemical basis (they are "software"). I don't think our brains have innate machinery for computing "love": instead, "love" is an idea we have learned to implement on our brains. We may value "love" in part because it satisfies that fleeting part of "love" which has remained neurochemically the same for the last 10 thousand years.
My mathematical reasoning abilities seem innate, in some ways, but these abilities are ideas which I have learned from other people.
It's like you are saying that both psychology and sociology reduce to neurochemistry. These things can be described using neurochemistry in part (and social interaction, and environment, and...), but not explained.
I was tempted to say that you may be assuming that things were always the way they are right now, but I don't think you go for that fallacy. It is a common fallacy.