Neither am I. Just because I can see the beauty in the colours of a rainbow and you call it "oh, just reflections of light on water" doesn't make any of our points any less valid. However, I have been trying to see your point of view and you neglet mine completely, which in turn has made me get bored of this particular discussion.

Love does exist it when you are not looking it finds you. One I was having a convo with God. I said that it I'm not going to search for a man anymore. It will be just my little boy and me. If I don't get married by 30 I won't get married at all. I'm tired of getting hurt and having nothing but cheaters in my life. Months pass by I started taking 5k walks too get back in shape after I had my son. I had notice a man would rush out of his house really quickly when I would pass by. I was on the other side of the road. I would notice pebbles falling from the sky. I like omgosh the sky is falling :gonk: later I found out it was the guy that would quickly rush out of his house. He was the one throwing the pebbles. I'm a woman so I avoided people I didn't know. Days pass by I see the same man rushing up the hill. Didn't think nothing of it. Few moments later I hear someone huffing and puffing losing breath to catch up too me. I was scared didn't know who he was thought the worst. But, asked me my name and then I asked the same back. He asked me out to the movies. I was like okay whatever. I didn't believe him :lol: well instead of going to the movies we went to churchm but before all this I asked around on who this fellow was. 7years later and another son we now have our little family. Love does exist and it is for everyone.

Well generally if you want to screw any argument or theory that is founded upon an empirical basis you go down the philosophy route. So if I wanted to pose a hypothetical argument to your chemical one I could take a dualism approach and say that conscious is separate from body. I could then go onto say that your argument is not actually a posterori argument because it is impossible to capture the events of someone actually falling in love and capture their emotions and feelings. So these chemical side effects is nothing more than speculation.

That is an example of an argument you could use. There are hundreds that span from the times of ancient Greece right up today. Asking me to cite them or do any sort of justice to them in detail would take years probably. I spent two years at school just studying Plato and Aristotle theories, even then that was just scratching the surface. You are lucky because you have in your possession one of the greatest tools of knowledge known to man- the interwebs :heart:
If you are really serious about learning more about the philosophy of love I would start there, even wikipedia does a run down of the various theories. Then you can get more perspectives from biology, philosophy, sociology ect.

@Blackeggicebird- that was so sweet!!

The only thing that disappoints me is that no one came up with the "correlation is not causation" argument.

As in: Are the chemicals causing the emotions, or are the emotions causing the chemicals? I thought that would be an easy one for people to use. It's even fact based, and can't be argued against. lol.

I don't think it would be applicable with the complex nature on the endocrine system and cognition. Really it would end up becoming a chicken or the egg question- did a chemical cause an emotion which caused another chemical response. There isn't one chemical response, there are many which adds to the complexity of neurology. Again I wouldn't claim anything is factually based when it comes to the subjective nature of emotion. In it's most simplest critique one could argue how would a researcher know that his test subjects are experiencing the same emotion? They can't, its not a controllable variable which makes comparisons hard to make.

This is true, however if we are going to base things on perception then no field of study can be said to be accurate. I may perceive things to be green which you perceive to be blue, red, etc.

Colour is observable therefore objective. Emotion is unobservable therefore subjective. We can be objective about observable factors and hypothesise on the subjective. Perception is really only acknowledged as a limitation in areas that are subjective because because objective factors are measurable and comparable.

Actually, nothing you perceive is objective. Ever done the test with the guy in the gorilla suit? No one ever sees him, but he's right there.

Your eyes actually guess at more than half of what you're seeing. You have several blind spots as well. Your ears do the same. Your brain is functioning on mostly bad data, or guesswork. Perception is faulty, no matter what you're looking at. Otherwise eye witness testimony wouldn't be so blasted faulty.

This is not entirely correct. Different cultures conceptualize, and differentiate between, colours differently.

@sarofset-
I already raised the issue that your stance was guilty of both biological determinism and reductionism. How can you claim that nobody questioned that?

I don't think love is actually there. If it was, then the feeling would not wear off when people get married. I think it's just the thrill of being with someone you like and maybe a little bit of lust, too. There's just too much for me to really believe that love is really true. But I might just be a little biased because I've never even dated anyone. I've liked a few people, but It wore off. That's also part of my testimony against love.