Yet, these are your primary questions.

There is nothing scientific about them.

They are logical. Logic is a science.

Prove my logic invalid.

Go.

The "prove me wrong" argument never worked with me. You're being incredibly harsh and unwilling to open up to my observations of your points of view, that's all I'm saying.

No. I'm just challenging you point of view. Stating my own.

I think love is chemical. I also think that the idea of love you're talking about is not what most people actually practice, and I'm citing that as evidence for my point of view.

Let me try and make myself clear, then.

You think love is chemical, therefore one of your questions has been answered already. If it's just chemical, there should be no "drama". Chemicals act and react, period. But you say there's drama involved, so it's not only acting-and-reacting involved, which forces a contradiction (the way I see it). Actually, you answer all your own questions. If it's chemical, then, by your own view, everyone should react equally to everyone because we're made of the same chemicals (lest you go about the different levels of chemicals, which in science matters a whole lot), and as for being easy or not... Eh. Look at as much people as you can: one is bound to react.

Is this how you see love? Even chemicals need an extra hand to create new reactions (example, man experimenting). So your view is incomplete, the way I see it. But the point actually is, you want us to talk about what love is, you refute, but haven't answered your question yourself. What is love from your prespective?

As for my idea of love. Well, the key word there is mine. I see it that way. Doesn't mean I practice is either, though. My view isn't all that silly.

When you are asking people about how they perceive and understand the concept of love, I would imagine that culture plays a fair amount into their answer. Love is after all a culturally defined concept. Furthermore I would question your analysis that the cultural environment has no impact on biology.

Human (amphibious model): living in and on the water

Cultural Neuroscience – Culture and the Brain

The Brain Is Essential – But Don’t Call It Essentialist!

Question: What is an example of scientism?
Answer:

Actually we all have different levels of hormones, neurotransmitters, and other things which alter our perception of the world around us, but they're still just chemicals. How the chemicals react is, for some reason, still not understood by scientist, influenced by external stimuli.

As for my questions. If love is some mystical thing, why is it hard? Why would it be hard? Why would there be drama? Why do we care so much? If someone leaves, then by your logic they're obviously not the one, so shouldn't we just move on?

Of course we don't, because Love is an addiction. A chemical addiction triggered by smell, sight, sound, and touch. You become addicted to a person. It's a really simple psychological, and biological concept. Regardless of what culture you belong to, love is still an addiction.

You haven't actually refuted anything I've said, other than saying I'm not, or that I am, answering my own questions. You're supposed to answer them, not me. That's how asking questions works.

Different cultures perceive and conceptualize love in different ways. Even you yourself have been quite readily acknowledging that the conception of love does not remain constant. Indeed it does not exist in a vacuum removed from the passage of time. But rather, like all culture, it is in a constant state of flux. This is only amplified by the cultural variation which I mentioned. For instance not all cultures define love as an emotion, some such as the Winnebago Indians previously, define it as a way of interacting with others.

Also as a point of interest. Here is a blog entry exploring the ethnocentrism in behavioural psychology.
We agree it’s WEIRD, but is it WEIRD enough?

It's hard because we have to work for it. That's what we're here for, if it was easy, we'd be taking it for granted. We care for reasons we can't explain, for everything, because that person "rocks your world". It's not because we're "addicted", though if you like you can use that term, I just find it a bit derrogatory.

No, that's not my logic at all, and I never said that, ever.

It seems to me what NeuzaKC is trying to say is that there is a spiritual aspect to love...one that is disembodied from the chemicals in our brains, and indeed our bodies as well.

I know, but I want her to show me something, that can't be explained chemically.

Anyone, please, go for it.

I tend to find myself wondering the same things and even went a good three years without giving anyone a chance. I was actually pretty happy during that time and the only reason it stopped was because someone was finally able to get my attention. We were together for just under five months but while things were good, I was the happiest I had ever been. Still, I do enjoy being single and not having to deal with drama and other such garbage. I think for people who are independent like that, the best thing to do is to simply go about your life as normal. If someone with some potential comes around then it won't hurt to try. I've never been one to go actively looking for love. I'd much rather put all of my time and energy into my one true love: Music. But that's just me.

As for love's existence, that's a tricky subject because so much of what plays a factor in falling in love is chemical and a means of species survival. However, it can be a truly magical experience. It's always wonderful to find someone who understands you, that you can trust, even if it's just a fragile illusion that is later destroyed. For that short amount of time, you feel invincible and that feeling is quite addictive.

With all of the people on this planet, I have a hard time believing there is The One out there. More like The Ones. There are plenty of people could wind up perfectly happy with. I guess it really boils down to who plays the sweetest riffs sweeps you off your feet first.

I've been coming to this conclusion over the last year as well. There was a point in my life that I was a hard-ass "there is only one person out there for me, he is my soul mate, I must wait for him" kind of chick. I have, however, begun to realize that you can love almost anyone if the will and a few specific traits are present. I feel like there are a thousand loves in this world for each of us. It's just the one that that gets us first that wins.

I had somebody ask me if I thought he was my soulmate once. I wanted to say, "well, you certainly got to me first, honey," but I couldn't bring myself to be so cold. I don't like to take away from others an aspect of fantasy that I've lost in my own life.

Off topic, but I couldn't help myself from replying.

I guess that does have something to do with this topic, however. People don't like to say that love is just a chemical...because it takes away yet another magical thing in life, just like the one I lost when I started losing faith in there being a "one and only." Sometimes people just want to believe in something for the sake of believing.

I have yet to find someone and think of them as my soul mate. Sure I've loved a few people but soul mate? I don't know if I'll ever think of someone that way.

Maybe it's because I'm independent and haven't ever truly found myself depending on someone in such a manner.

I've never really "depended" on somebody in love. I'm too young yet to believe that somebody would be truthfully willing to stick around forever. I've loved somebody more than my own life before, but I still feel like that could be found again wish somebody new and different. Soul mate has left my vocabulary for the time being.

Yeah that whole "until death do us part" thing is pretty hard to believe even on a good day. I'm subscribe more to the "enjoy what you have while you have it" belief.

*nod* And if it just happens to stick around forever, don't complain. /end off topic rant, lol.

I quite honestly know almost nothing about physics and chemistry, and the example I'm about to use is already making me cringe and gag, but what about those in online relationships?

I'm going to try and make this super clear, so I can't be misinterpreted.

Now, I don't know anyone's stance on this, yours personally, but I don't buy the whole "online relationship" thing. But for the sake of the argument, let's just pretend (or rather, I will) that it's real. I mean, it is happening.

So, basically, to try and get my point across, how can chemicals react if it's just words on a screen? Again, I don't know much about chemicals, but I'm pretty sure that no matter what chemicals or what amount of them may be in say, Alaska, they're not going to react to chemicals in Japan. So, if I'm assuming all this correctly, there is no chemical explanation for people "falling in love" with other people separated by a computer screen and a large amount of miles, who have never laid eyes on each other or had any kind of contact.

I will say, again, I do not comply with the use of the word "love" when it comes to this, but people do claim they're in love and etc.. I also refuse to discuss my views on this particular matter, as I'm just trying to answer the OPs questions. Or something.

The chemicals react with other chemicals in your brain it has nothing to do with where the other person is. You create the addiction yourself, in your brain. It's mostly mental, not physical. Your eyes see the other person, or some representation of them, and your brain releases endorphins. You feel pleasure because of their presence, or their words. I've met people addicted to poetry, and music because of the effect it has on their brain. They get a high by reading or listening to it. People have fallen in love with characters in plays, books, movies etc.

It's not magic. It's not a fat little angel with a bow and arrow. It's chemicals in your brain, which we understand quite well. The fact is the your brain, releases endorphins when you see someone attractive, that keeps happening whenever you see them, and bam, conditioned response. You're "in love." When the high goes away people get bored. They leave, cheat, or start thinking about doing one or the other.

If people can fall in love with fictional characters, that is people love people who do not exist, how can it be some mystical thing? What right minded mystical force would make you love words on paper?

I think you think I have some fantasy view on love, mate. I don't buy the cupid fairytale either.

People can't, and do not fall in love with fictional characters. If they believe they do, then that's some (pardon the language) fucked up shit, and they need to be checked. That's a horrible argument on your part. And doesn't chocolate release endorphins either? But no one falls in love with that, it's a food, right? Yes, it makes us happy, or relaxed, but we're not in love with it. So I still don't think it's "just chemical responses".

And that made no sense. I'm not wrong, just because you say so. And yes people do fall in love with fictional characters. Look it up, and see.

Also, you proved my point with your chocolate argument. People become addicted to the caffeine and suger in chocolate, and coffee. People become addicted to the endorphins released during a workout, or while playing video games. I'm arguing that love is an intense addiction to the endorphin release caused by the sight, sound, or smell of a lover, so... thanks?

The intensity of the addiction by the way has to do with the amount of endorphins released. Lots = quick addiction.

Gag me. I'm about to agree with this argument, lol.

You can and do fall madly in love with somebody you meet over the internet. This happens a lot with lonely people. They get somebody who decides they love them more than the world and the very idea that somebody could love them, they who thought they were impossible to love, and they get that immediate rush of pleasure chemicals released onto a brain that hasn't seen those chemicals in an incalculable amount of time. This, I think, is why online relationships are so, for lack of a better word, strong. Because chemicals that were basically non-existent beforehand are suddenly no longer absent.

We understand quite well? Actually the research into this is pretty meagre and inconclusive. In fact neurology is kinda of an uncharted sea. What we know about cognition and the way the brain works is actually not a lot. Even the people who contribute research and evidence to this theory like Marazzati and Emanuele acknowledge their research is not without limitations. Pretending that this theory is factual is a huge fallacy. Other theories formed from sociological and pyschological pespectives exist too.
I don't really understand what the goal of your argument is. Are we supposed to have some sort of epiphany and say screw love because it is just an illusion? People do have successful relationships, you kinda of sound a little bitter when you say we end up getting bored and leaving or cheating. I think I said before people do not percieve their cognition, emotion, thoughts, and feelings as chemical reactions. Hence why we fall in and out of love without attributing it to evolutionary biology. Some people believe in luck or others believe in soulmates or some other mystically force that governs their fate. I don't find this demeaning in any form. It's what makes humanity interesting, because we find ways to interpret the world around us. Science is after all a one of these methods- an empirical methodology for the acquisition of knowledge, but it is not the only one and probably the least used by humanity. How many people actually seek empirically validation for everyday events in life- virtually none.

Congratulations. You have a credible argument, with evidence and everything.

And no, I don't want people to give up on love, I really really believe in it myself. I just want someone to say something I haven't heard before. I hear the same arguments on both sides of this so often that it's become boring for me, and saddly it comes up a lot with my circle of friends.

So I want to hear something new.

Go.