If you believe in gravity, then why not a soul, or spirit?

[Gawen]

Not measurable?  So then, since your sense-of-self is also not measurable, definable, or observable,  it must not exist?

In the interests of clarity, are you now using 'sense-of-self' as another term for 'soul' or have the goalposts moved?  How would you personally measure it and what units would you use?  Is mass, distance or time involved at all?  I'm not sure if you are actively arguing for the existence of the soul or not.

I'm trying to point out, that people seem to readily accept and rely on concepts which are intangible, not quantifiable, and non observable all the time.  So then , why would believing in a soul, or spirit, seem like such a stretch?

I can't show you gamma rays but I can show the effects of it. I can't show you a soul either, nor the effects of it. Equating "Gravity exists, therefore soul exists" is as idiotic as saying "Gamma radiation exists, therefore God".

Maybe the effects are your actions.

Sorry, but I do not understand this at all.

[The Magic Pudding]

It's always fascinating when I hear atheists demanding objective evidence of God, spirits, after-life, etc., as if one could not possibly believe in such things without hard objective proofs.

Yet, at the same time, they can carry tons of strong beliefs in things that there is no objective evidence for.  Things just based on sensory experience and rationalistic ideas.

There are reasons why a social being would evolve to feel protective of a mate or children, and we can call this love.  If I have a child and I think she is the most beautiful child that has ever been, I know on one level I'm just being played by the gene survival machine but I choose to play along, I know it's an illusion but I don't challenge it.

Being a sentient animal I know fear and I can imagine something more than I am.  I could try and accept a reassuring fiction but I don't think it's a very good deal, I think the Christian church has tainted the supernatural option, all that hypocrisy, sadism and violence. 

[Squid]

What did they conclude?  Several people believed there senses to be telling them they were 'in love'?   So if they did the study somewhere where the culture had no word 'love', but 'spirit' in place of that concept, I suppose they would conclude that those people were 'in spirit'.

As long as "spirit" is defined as an emotion or a combination thereof, I suppose the answer is yes.

Is there really not a single neurologist, shrink or even a radiology intern here? Someone who can omit all my "supposes" and "mays" and "probablies"?

squid has a background in this stuff but I think he's busy...I'm sure he'll feel compelled to comment the next time he has time to focus on commenting on the forum in depth.

Yeah, sorry - job gets in the way of my fun-time  .  BUT, today is Squid's last day at the office before vacation time so within the next few days I should be able to have some more in depth input.

As for the "love" thing, I've enountered many people that attempt to utilize that as support for everything from a deity to a soul or to just try to get people to admit that there are "inexplicable" things and that then somehow proves supernatural things.  I wrote a paper a few years back on the subject of love and posted it somewhere here.

Let me see if I can find it.

Found it (ignore some of the little strange characters, this was originally taken from my Word document):

"Love makes the world go round", the old saying goes. Men and women have written about, died for, sacrificed for, lament about, idolized, suffered for and sung praises of love for centuries. This concept is known to all yet it remains very much an enigma. Many cannot define it if asked to. So what is this thing we call love? What is this enigma that is the subject of sonnets and something we pursue throughout our lives in one form or another? The answer will differ from person to person.

So important to mankind is love that some of the most noted literature revolves around it. Plato wrote his Symposium of which the subject love was the topic of the night. Shakespeare wrote many sonnets about love and a play in which the characters die for it. A most curious aspect of life love is and a very important one to mankind.

Psychology has not left love untouched and has attempted to examine and explain what love is. There is no shortage of work in regards to the inquiry of love. Social theories, evolutionary theories, biological theories have all contributed to help us elucidate this thing we call love.

What exactly is this "love" concept we are referring to? A colloquial definition of love is a "deep affection and warm feeling for another" as well as "the emotion of sex and romance; strong sexual desire for another person" (Pickett, 2001). Unfortunately these definitions still leave much to be desired. It has simply explained an umbrella concept with other similar concepts. Breaking down love into more specific mechanisms and phenomena involved is shown within the literature. However, Sternberg (1986) warns, "a theory of love…can help one understand the range and composition of the phenomenon of love but should not result in the whole's being lost in its parts".

To further describe what love is and what it involves there has been a distinction of two general divisions, companionate and passionate love. Companionate love consists of feeling intimacy and affection for someone but it is not accompanied by any physiological arousal. Passionate love on the other hand involves an intense physiological arousal and an intense longing for another person (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2005). This division is referred to as the two-factor theory of love and are considered to be the two primary elements of love from which all the other varieties of love can be derived (Compton, 2005).

Expounding upon these fundamentals, Sternberg (1986) formulated his triangular theory of love. The three main components consisting of intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment. For Sternberg's theory, intimacy is defined as referring to feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. Passion refers to "drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, sexual consummation, and related phenomena" (p. 119). Decision/commitment is divided into short-term and long-term. In the short term it involves the decision that an individual loves another and in the long-term, involving a commitment to maintain the love.

Of the three main divisions, Sternberg notes the stability of each stating:

“The emotional and other involvement of the intimacy component and the cognitive commitment of the decision/commitment component seem to be relatively stable in close relationships, whereas the motivational and other arousal of the passion component tends to be relatively unstable and to come and go on a somewhat unpredictable basis (pp. 120).”

Sternberg further notes that there are eight possible subsets that can be derived from the "love triangle". These are â€" nonlove, liking, infatuated love, empty love, romantic love, companionate love, and consummate love.
Nonlove is the term that is given when all of the three components of the triangle are not present. A relationship with an acquaintance of ours such as a business partner or the gentlemen from whom we buy a newspaper every morning would be classified as nonlove.

Liking involves only the intimacy component of the triangle. Liking in Sternberg's theory is what we would find in friendships where we feel a closeness toward someone "but the friend does not 'turn one on,' nor…that one plans to love the friend for the rest of one's life" (pp. 123). In popular language many people often say that they "love" their friends yet as defined in the context of this theory, we would say we 'like' our friends. The confusion can arise on this point since there is a vague hierarchy in a common sense that love is above like both of which are very abstract in colloquial usage which can prompt such questions as, "do you like him/her or do you like him like him". Despite the obvious clumsiness of the language, most people will understand what is meant.

The third subset is infatuated love. This type of love is what is present when someone experiences "love at first sight". Infatuation, which is often mistaken for a "deeper" type of love, "results from the experiencing of passionate arousal" (pp. 124). Infatuations can come and go, spontaneously arising and dissolving just as quickly. Being as it involves arousal of passion, many psychophysiological arousals occur such as increased heart rate and genital erection.

Empty love is a subset which involves the decision/commitment component. A person has decided that they love someone and is committed to it. There is no real intimacy or passion. Empty love can often be found towards the end of a relationship although it is not exclusive to a relationships finale. For instance, "in societies where marriages are arranged, the marital partners may start with the commitment to love each other, or to try to love each other, and not much more" (pp. 124).

Romantic love is the subset that we most often find as the subject of songs, sonnets and movies. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is a classic example of romantic love. Romantic love involves intimacy and passion where both people are physically aroused and attracted to one another as well as sharing an emotional bond. However, some have argued that romantic love is no different than infatuation. Even Sternberg states that, "it is difficult to maintain romantic love over a long period of time" (pp. 133).

The combination of the intimacy and the decision/commitment components will result in companionate love. Sternberg likens this type of love to a long-term, committed friendship â€" one you might find in a marriage of an elderly couple where the fires of passion have burned down.

The final subset is consummate love. Consummate love contains all three components of the theory in full. It is simply the type of love for which most relationships seek to obtain. However it is not guaranteed perfect or to last for life, as Sternberg notes, "its loss is sometimes analogous to the gain of weight after a weight reduction program: one is often not aware of the loss of the goal until it is far gone" (pp. 124).

Within the triangular theory, there is also the relation between ideal and real involvement. The ideal involvement is exemplified by consummate love, however, over and underinvolvement where aspects of the relationships fall short or overshoot the components involved.

Along with ideal vs. real involvement is the relation of the two people involved in the relationship. Perfect matches share the same level of involvement in each component involved but a mismatch may occur if these are not close in both individuals. For instance one person may be more involved in the decision/commitment component and the other more involved in the passion component and this disparity will be considered a mismatch a mean that the relationship is in trouble.

Another sort of triangle or rather a three dimensional structure of what was term a prototype of love by Aron and Westbay (1996). The three dimensions, similar to Sternberg's theory, are passion, intimacy, and commitment. These three dimensions were gleaned from work by Beverly Fehr who identified 68 features central to prototypical love. Aron and Westbay state that the three dimensions can be understood in two ways. The first way is that they "represent a summary description in the sense of providing a parsimonious set of terms" (pp. 548). That is when people rate features (of the 68 outlined by Fehr) that are central or non-central to the prototype, features within the same dimension will be rated similarly. Secondly, the similarity in rating within the dimensions hints that there "a direct linkage among the features within a dimension in the way they are treated in cognitive processing" (p. 549). From their studies, Aron and Westbay conclude that, "there is a reliable latent structure of how people understand love and that this structure is characterized by three somewhat inter-correlated dimensions of passion, intimacy, and commitment" (pp. 550).

The idea of being mismatched in a relationship and seeking to come to a balance, to become close to equilibrium is core to the equity theory of love. The equity theory of relationships holds that the costs and benefits for each individual must be equal to have in order to be the most stable. Consequently, depending upon the costs and benefits for each person there may be under or overbenefit. Both those who experience underbenefit and overbenefit "should be motivated to restore equity to the relationship" (Aronson et al., 2005). While one who is experiencing underbenefit is obviously motivated to seek this restoration of equity, the theory holds that those experiencing overbenefit should be motivated as well. The motivation for the overbenefited is said to stem from a feeling of guilt because "equity is a powerful social norm" (pp. 334). However, the imbalance is seen as more of a problem by those who are underbenefited rather than those who are overbenefited.

Delving further into the component of commitment involved in love, Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, and Smith (2001) see commitment as beneficial into two major ways to the relationship. The first way is that love promoted commitment will motivate intimacy towards a partner and is "likely to countervail feelings of desire for others" in the absence of the partner (pp. 248). The second is that the outward displays of gestures, actions and speaking communicates the commitment and thereby serves to strengthen the bond by fostering feelings such as trust and mutual dependence.

In one study, Gonzaga et al. found that there were four cues that were correlated with partner estimates of love and self-reports. These four cues were head nods, Duchenne smiling, gesticulation, and forward leans. Duchenne smiling or "genuine smile" is a smile that is produced as a result of genuine emotion and characterized by the movement of the muscles near the eyes and around the corners of the mouth. Gesticulation are gestures, the non-verbal communication made with parts of the body â€" "body language" as it is commonly termed. The study also found that this was not correlated with self-reports of happiness or desire, "suggesting that this pattern of behavior may be unique to love" (pp. 254). It was also found that the display and experiencing of love was not related to any negative emotions, only positive ones leading them to conclude that love is not about reducing distress but pleasure.

Feeney and Noller (1990) examined attachment styles in relation to romantic relationships in adults. Their study was conducted upon a sample of 374 undergraduates with questionnaires measuring attachment style, attachment history, beliefs about relationships, self-esteem, limerence, love addiction, and love styles. Their study found that secure participants had positive family relationships and trusting attitudes toward others. Anxious-ambivalent participants had a perception of a lack of paternal support and had a desire or dependence for commitment. Avoidant subjects were "most likely to endorse items measuring mistrust of and distance from others" (pp. 286). The importance of their findings is that it shows how a person's attachment style can affect their relationships with others.

Murray, Holmes and Griffin (1996) studied positive illusions in romantic relationships. They examined dating couples and measured their idealization and well-being three times over the course of a year. Some of the ideas that relate to positive illusions in relationships are they outlined:

* They act as a mechanism which allows the couple to cope with disappointments.

* Married couples will more likely stay committed if positive interactions outweigh the negative ones by a ratio of 5:1.

* Illusions may act to insulate the couple from the effects of conflict and doubt â€" the buffering hypothesis.

It was found that when couples both idealized each other, the "relationships persisted, satisfaction increased, conflicts were averted, doubts abated, and personal insecurities diminished" (pp. 1178). With these findings in mind, it might answer the common question of many people's friends when they ask, "what does he/she see in them?" What we may see and what they may "see" might not be what exactly they see but what they focus on and what they ignore in the process of idealization of their partner. As Murray et al. found, "individuals who integrated a partner's virtues and faults within a compensatory 'Yes, buts…' are actually involved in more stable relationships than individuals who compartmentalize their partners' faults, leaving pockets of doubt" (pp. 1178).

The sweet sting of Cupid's arrow not only involves the production of illusions or rather idealization of another. Aron, Paris and Aron (1995) examined the consequences of falling in love. Their study consisted of undergraduates who had a high expectancy of falling in love, who were tested with open ended lists of self-descriptive terms and standard self-efficacy and self-esteem measures. What was found was, after having fell in love the students showed an increase in the diversity of self concepts as well as an increase in self-efficacy and self-esteem. A further analysis found that the results were not due simply to a mood change in the participants. Their findings simply solidify the fact that falling in love is a very positive experience for people which obviously has self-enhancing contributions.

In the study conducted by Gonzaga et al., they commented on two other areas of inquiry into love â€" the biological and evolutionary value. They stated that, "love may have distinct neural substrates" and it may serve as a commitment function that "may increase the ability of offspring to survive" (pp. 259). The idea of biological agents underlying love is not new. Aristophanes' story in Plato's Symposium tells of creatures who were bonded together and then separated by the gods. These creatures then spent the rest of their lives trying to find their other half. This is idea may be concluded from the observation of people when pursuing love stating that they want to find someone to "complete" them. Studies into the biology of love have shown there is distinct processes involved. While it may not be the drive to find our other halves, love does have quantifiable physiology involved.

Bartels and Zeki (2004) examined the brain activity of mothers viewing pictures of their children, acquainted children, best friend and acquainted adults. This maternal love was compared to data from romantic couples. When viewing their own children, cortical activity was found in the medial insula and in the cingulated gyrus dorsal and ventral of the genu. The medial insula is involved in emotional interpretations, especially visual ones and the cingulated gyrus is part of the limbic association cortex of which the dorsal and ventral bend or "genu" was implicated (Martin, 1996). These areas overlapped with the activity findings in romantic love. Subcortical activity which also overlapped with romantic love was found in striatum and in the substantia nigra and in subthalamic regions. The striatum is made up of the caudate nucleus and the putamen.

These two structures which are involved with voluntary movement. The substantia nigra works in conjunction with the striatum in controlling movement and has axons which project to the caudate nucleus and the putamen (Carlson, 2004). Some differences were noted however. In romantic love, activity was specifically found in the dentate gyrus/hippocampus and the hypothalamus and appeared the same in male and female participants. The areas activated in the study in romantic and maternal love are "sites with a high density of oxytocin and vasopressin receptors" (pp. 1162). The areas also are known to belong to the brain's "reward system". In line with the idea of the illusions formed in love, the study suggests that love inhibits negative emotions and "affects the network involved in making social judgments about that person" (pp. 1162). Deactivation of the social judgment network was observed in the areas of the middle prefrontal, inferior parietal and middle temporal cortices. These areas are mainly playing a role in cognition and involved in emotions which are often negative. Other areas which saw deactivation were the amygdale, temporal poles, parietotemporal junction and the mesial prefrontal cortex which have been consistently "associated to negative emotions and to social, moral and 'theory of mind' tasks" (pp. 1163).

In pair-bonding and sexual behavior the specific neuropeptides oxytocin and vasopressin act as neurotransmitters. These chemicals are also important in birth and other reproductive behavior. Oxytocin in females is important in lactation and smooth muscle contractions of the uterus (Hiller, 2004). Hiller also notes that oxytocin release in male rats increases after ejaculation and that through sensory stimuli it possibly creates "positive mental states including calmness and openness to social engagement" (pp.397). Vasopressin in the brain is linked to temperature and blood pressure regulation as well as promotes water reabsorption (Martin, 1996) as well as promoting sexual eagerness in men (Hiller, 2004). These two neurochemicals are regulated in part by oestrogen and testosterone and "provide a link between the demands of the organism and the social and physical environment" (pp.397).

The study of these chemicals as they relate to pair bonding and attachment has been extensively studied in the prairie vole. Prairie voles are small rodents which exhibit monogamous behaviors such as keeping only one mate, cohabitation of mates, males participating in parental care and the rejection of intruders. Insel (2000) notes many other the specific findings in studies on prairie voles as it relates to the chemicals oxytocin and vasopression. Investigation on females and the role of oxytocin finds that female prairie voles who are injected with an oxytocin antagonist resemble the non-monogamous montane voles where they "mate normally but show no lasting interest in their mate" (p. 180). Montane and prairie voles are very similar and very close evolutionarily. However when montane voles were given doses of oxytocin, it had little or no effect on their social behavior even when given high doses. This finding shows that "these species share the same receptor but differ in its regional expression" (pp. 180). For the males, the operative chemical is vasopressin. When given a vasopressin antagonist male prairie voles failed to develop a partner preference after mating as they normally would.

Lim, Hammock and Young (2004) focused their attention on vasopressin, the V1a receptor and a particular gene, V1aR. They found that while prairie and montane voles' V1aR shows 99% identical coding sequences making a protein that is nearly the same, they found some differences in the sequence upstream of the V1aR:

Specifically, in the prairie vole, there is approximately 500 bp of a highly repetitive sequence located at 622 bp upstream of the transcription start site, which is absent in the montane vole. Interestingly, a similar sequence is also found in the monogamous pine vole (Microtus pinetorum), and is absent in the non-monogamous meadow vole (Microtus penssylvanicus) (pp. 326).

To test if the V1aR gene is responsible for the pair bonding behavior, transgenic mice for the prairie voles were used. When the mice were injected with vasopressin they, "responded with increased affiliative behavior, much like prairie voles, whereas the wild-type mice had no changes in social behavior, much like the non-monogamous montane voles" (p. 327). However, the mice did not show binding in some of the brain areas thought to be critical for bonding in prairie voles and they also did not show a partner preference which suggests that there are other factors involved.

Another neurotransmitter involved in love is the well known and very important neurotransmitter dopamine. It is known to be involved in many items from schizophrenia to addictive behavior and the reinforcing "reward" system. Two specific brain areas are implicated accordingly â€" the caudate nucleus and the ventral tegmental area (VTA) as evidenced through studies utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to assess activity. Both of the brain regions are part of the mesolimbic reward system. In light of this evidence, found also by Bartels and Zeki, Fisher (2000) states that the item we know as love evolved to "motivate individuals to engage in positive social behaviors and/or sustain their affiliative connections long enough to complete species-specific parental duties". Fisher also notes that the "tendency to focus on specific moments associated with the beloved are additional indications that dopamine is involved in the feeling of romantic attraction" (pp. 99). With the involvement of dopamine and the emotional reward complexes of the brain, it may not be too much of a stretch to say that when people fall in love, they can be in effect "addicted" to one another.

Wang, Yu, Cascio, Liu, Gingrich and Insel set out to further look into the role of dopamine and specific receptors involved by studying prairie voles. The team performed five experiments to test different aspects of the receptors with specific dopaminergic compounds. Their first experiment tested whether the dopamine agonist apomorphine would induce partner preference in the voles without mating. They also sought to examine whether the antagonist haloperidol would block partner preference after mating. Females treated with apomorphine spent more time with a partner than they did with a stranger. It was found that females injected with the haloperidol spent less time with a partner and more time with a stranger compared to saline-injected females. Experiment 2 focus was put upon receptor-specific antagonists and agonists to "define the receptor-mediated mechanism involved in dopamine regulation of partner preference" (p. 603). They found that D2 but not D1 receptor antagonist blocked partner preference formations. Females injected with quinpirole, a D2 receptor agonist, showed more contact with a partner than a stranger while partner preference was no observed in females who received an injection of the D1 receptor agonist SKF38393. Experiment 3 was set to examine D2 receptor antagonism on partner preference formation. Females who were injected with eticlopride before mating and females injected after mating both showed no partner preference although the control saline group did. Experiment 4 was to see if the D2 antagonist would have an effect 24 hours after mating which is presumed to be after memory consolidation has taken place. The D2 antagonist failed to block partner preference. Both females injected with eticlopride and saline still showed partner preference. Finally, experiment 5 was to test if dopamine works on the central nervous system to regulate partner preference formation. It was found that "females injected intracerebroventricularly with CSF displayed mating-induced partner preference, as they had more body contact with the partner than with a stranger" (pp. 607). Females injected with eticlopride, however, did not show partner preference which suggests that the antagonist's introduction into the brain blocked mating-induced partner preferences.

How might this information of neurochemicals in voles and mice be translated to humans? As Insel (2000) notes, oxytocin and oxytocin receptors are found in the human brain. The receptors are found in "particularly enriched dopaminergic regions, such as the substantia nigra" (pp. 182). It is also know that oxytocin is released when nursing and during copulation. For males the active chemical would be vasopressin. The dopamine "reward" system is also present and very important in humans and has been implicated to play a major role in addiction to drugs of abuse and may serve a similar function in partner pair formation.
The rise of pair-bonding and attachment became associated with the sexual mating behaviors and eventually became what we term love. This idea is noted by Diamond (2003) when she states that, "although sexual desire and romantic love are often experienced in concert, they are governed by different social-behavioral systems that evolved to serve different goals". Which in humans can be observed and is considered obvious when considered that there is often mating without any type of pair-bonding or attachment formation. Also there can be attachments and pair-bonding without the drive to mate at all. This goes into the many aspects in human social interaction that can be covered by the term love. One can love a parent, a friend and a mate but obviously not all involve sexual behaviors. One can love a friend and a parent which would consist of only attachment or bonding. As well, one can have a mate where there is sexual behavior but not any attachment involved. Also one can love a partner without sexual behavior present as well.

Focusing on the evolutionary aspect of attachment, Immerman (2003) explores the specific behaviors not found in other terrestrial primates such as male paternalistic behaviors and the sharing of resources. In examining this aspect, Immerman notes that the neurohormonal bases for mother and child bonding would be dissimilar from the extended man-woman and man-child bond which are not seen in any of the other great apes (pp. 140). To explain this in an evolutionary view, Immerman sees past female mate selection as the driving force, pushing the species toward what we now know collectively as love. Immerman concludes that the available research indicates that these tendencies seen in humans are "based on a successful reproductive strategy of our female ancestors…that enables them to exploit a novel resource for predictable sustenance for themselves and their offspring" (pp. 146). This also highlights a mating strategy difference between men and women that has evolved.

It is hypothesized that over time males and females have developed an asymmetry in relation to mating strategies. That is, males tend to seek to produce viable offspring to carry on their genetics and women seek support and protection for themselves and the young. Testing this hypothesis can be difficult given that we only have modern humans to work with. Cramer and Abraham (2001) set out to test the evolutionary view and compare it against an alternative view while investigating emotional and sexual infidelity. The alternative hypothesis compared against is that the concern over sexual infidelity in males is a means to logically infer that an emotional attachment is also present. In females, the emotional attachment is a means to logically infer that sexual infidelity is taking place as well. In their investigation 191 participants were involved and evaluated across three treatment groups â€" forced choice, conditional probability and combined infidelity. The forced choice treatment involved 31 men and 33 women who were asked to imagine their partner forming a deep emotional bond with another person and imagine their partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person. The results of the forced choice group agreed with the evolutionary hypothesis in that “more men than women were distressed by a partner’s sexual infidelity, and more women than men were distressed by a partner’s emotional infidelity” (pp. 331). In the conditional probability group the test used the differential infidelity implication with 30 men and 35 women. The DII is defined by Cramer and Abraham:

The DII is defined by the difference between two likelihood estimates, (a) the likelihood that a partner’s emotional infidelity serves as a basis for logically inferring that sexual infidelity is also occurring (female perspective) and (b) the likelihood that a partner’s sexual infidelity serves as a basis for logically inferring that emotional infidelity is also occurring (male perspective) (pp. 332).
The results of the test did not statistically support an alternative hypothesis. The results for the women reflected a “male perspective” instead of the “female perspective” as would be predicted by the alternative hypothesis. In the combined infidelity group, involving 30 men and 32 women, both were instructed to imagine a partner being emotionally and sexually unfaithful. The results from this condition also supported the evolutionary hypothesis indicating that women were more worried about an emotional bond and men were worried more about sexual relations. Explaining these findings in the view of the evolutionary hypothesis, Cramer and Abraham state:

Emotional infidelity is more distressing for women than men because, in theory, it threatens a romantic partner’s commitment, and therefore, continued access to material resources and economic stability. Men, on the other hand, find sexual infidelity more distressing than women to because it decreases paternity certainty resulting from the loss of sexual exclusivity (pp. 333).

Cramer and Abraham’s study was not the only one supporting the evolutionary view of infidelity in relationships. A similar study was performed by Ward and Voracek (2004) where they also compare the evolutionary hypothesis to the alternative hypothesis known as the social cognitive account. Ward and Voracek examine 268 participants with a questionnaire of 15 items as well as asking about age, sex and whether or not they were currently in a romantic relationship. The findings of this study seemed to coincide with the findings of Cramer and Abraham in that the males found sexual intercourse more distressing than did women who found emotional attachment more distressing than the sexual intercourse. Ward and Voracek conclude that the results support the evolutionary account, however they do not rule out other influences stating, “this does not mean that culture plays no part in a broader explanation of these sex differences” (pp. 170). They view culture as a moderator variable influencing the expression of a sex-typed disposition.

Taking a different approach to the attachments in mates, Fraley, Brumbaugh, and Marks (2005) utilized comparative phylogenetic methods to analyze archived data of 2 divisions of mammals. Their first examination involved 44 families of mammals. The information they recorded was in five categories: pair bonding, paternal involvement, developmental immaturity, social characteristics and body size. They found that in monogamous or pair bonded animals several common items. These were:

*  Animals were more likely to have fathers who played a role in child rearing.
*  Tended to have longer life spans.
*  Tended to have longer gestation times.
*  Take longer to leave the home or nest.
*  Reach puberty at a later age.
*  Tended to have fewer siblings or offspring
*  Social structure was in smaller groups.
*  Tended to be smaller than other animals (pp. 736-737)

In the second examination, 66 anthropoid primates were examined. Similar findings occurred for the primates as the other animals with the exception of siblings and offspring. While they also tended to have smaller social groups, pair-bonded primates had more siblings or offspring. Another difference was that monogamous primates "tended to have larger family groups, whereas the monogamous mammals in Study 1 tended to have smaller family groups" (p. 740). In their analysis, it was also shown that pair-bonding emerged after paternal care in mammalian evolution. They speculate that "the presence of paternal care set the stage for pair bonding rather than the other way around" (pp. 742). This may show that the mechanisms involved in what we have come to term love have been around quite a long time.

Love is indeed a complex item involving many different interacting items. Brain function, specific neurotransmitters and millions of years of natural selection have set the stage. Through evolutionary analyses we see that the seeds have been planted long ago for love. We also can pinpoint specific areas of our brain involved as well as specific chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin. We have developed psychological models which break love into specific categories and attachment styles. However, none of this seems to have stolen the awe and magic surrounding love. We still seek it throughout our lives, we base ideologies upon it, we write moving literature about its wonders and create emotion invoking musical compositions in praise of it. For all we have learned about love it is still declared a mystery by most. Even though we can break it down to simple neurofunctionality and evolutionary lineages, the intrigue remains and may continue for long after my generation and the one after have passed into antiquity.
References

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-
concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102-1112.

Aron, A. & Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 535-551.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2005). Social Psychology. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21, 1155-1166.

Carlson, N. (2004). Physiology of Behavior. (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Compton, W. (2005). An Introduction to Positive Psychology. Belmont: Thomson
Wadsworth.

Cramer, R. & Abraham, W. (2001). Gender differences in subjective distress to
emotional and sexual infidelity: Evolutionary or logical inference explanation? Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20, 327-336.

Diamond, L. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model
distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173-192.

Fisher, H. (2000). Lust, attraction, attachment: Biology and evolution of the three primary emotion systems for mating, reproduction, and parenting. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25, 96-104.

Feeney, J. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment styles as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.

Fraley, R., Brumbaugh, C. & Marks, M. (2005). The evolution and function of adult attachment: A comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 731-746.

Gonzaga, G., Keltner, D., Londahl, E., and Smith M. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247-262.

Hiller, J. (2004). Speculations on the links between feelings, emotions and sexual behaviour: are vasopressin and oxytocin involved? Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19, 393-412.

Immerman, R. (2003). Perspectives on human attachment (pair bonding): Eve's unique legacy of a canine analogue. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 138-154.

Insel, T. (2000). Toward a neurobiology of attachment. Review of General Psychology, 4, 176-185.

Lim, M., Hammock, E., & Young, L. (2004). The role of vasopressin in the genetic and neural regulation of monogamy. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 16, 325-332.

Martin, J. (1996). Neuroanatomy: Text and Atlas. (2nd ed.). Stamford: Appleton & Lange.

Murray, S., Holmes, J., & Griffin, D. (1996). The self-fulfilling nature of positive
illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind, but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155-1180.

Sternberg, R. (1986). The triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Wang, Z., Yu, G., Cascio, C., Liu, Y., Gingrich, B. & Insel, T. (1999). Dopamine D2 receptor-mediated regulation of partner preferences in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): A mechanism for pair bonding? Behavioral Neuroscience, 113, 602-611.

Ward, J. & Voracek, M. (2004). Evolutionary and social cognitive explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 165-171.

[Davin]

Drop a rock, now show me similar evidence for a soul. That is why gravity is accepted and a soul is not.

Well, you typed this response, that could be evidence.

So any actions I make are evidence for this "soul"? Sorry, that just sounds like an argument from ignorance, if you think that any action I take can only be explained by a soul, then I think you just aren't open enough to other possibilities. However, this could also be represented as, "anything that does things, has a soul." Is that the route you want to take with this and are you OK with attributing the actions of parameciums to a soul?

Unless, you believe gravity, or atoms, or electromagnetic forces can explain why you wrote what you did.

False dichotomy. It's not these things or a soul, unless you can demonstrate that it must be one or the other.

What if I were to say I can sense my spirit?  Not enough evidence? Ridiculous?

No, just not useful to anyone else.

Let me ask everyone a question.  Have you ever been in love with anybody?  If so, I don't believe you.  Show me the evidence. I want to see it, touch it, measure it, quantify it.  I don't think you can do this so I think your 'love' is just some out-of-date belief based on superstition.  A delusion.  And so what do you think about that?

It's a subjective experience that only I care about, I don't care if anyone else knows or not. But you calling what I call my experience of love something else, would require that you do present evidence for your claim. So do you have any evidence that I'm delusional when I think I'm in love?

I'm using the same logic that an atheist may use towards a theist who claims to have a soul.

No, you're not. Well, I don't discount the possibility that an atheist may use such faulty logic against a theist claiming to have a soul, I just think it's rather selective.

[squidfetish]

....*epic post*....

That was a cracking read Monsieur Squid. I learned a fair old chunk of stuff there.  Thanks for posting it! 

[Asmodean]

....*epic post*....

That was a cracking read Monsieur Squid. I learned a fair old chunk of stuff there.  Thanks for posting it! 

You do realise that when they say that, it's usually because they find the article too long by half a mile to even bother reading?  (  )

The Asmo, he did read it, and is going to do so again, just for good measure. Only really answers a part of the issue raised, but mayhaps Squid is not yet done with this thread 

[Happy_Is_Good]

I'll just use 'spirit' interchangeable with 'soul' here.

The spirit, could be said to be an intangible, invisible force, which can effect material bodies.  Gravity, also an intangible, invisible force which can effect material bodies.

So then, if gravity is something easily accepted, why would the concept of a spirit be disregarded so easily?

If you believe in spirit or soul then please show us some evidence. 

Also, I would like to point out that you made a logical error from the get-go when you compared the properties of Gravity and souls: this is called the False Analogy Fallacy.  An example of the False Analogy Fallacy would be as follows:

Pope John Paul loved children and small animals, and he was a Roman Catholic.  Adolph Hitler loved children and small animals, and he was a Roman Catholic.  So, if Pope John Paul was a peaceful man, then we can assume that Adolph Hitler would be a peaceful man, too.

The False Analogy Fallacy occurs when people leave out certain important characteristics of the objects/people/etc.  whose properties are being enumerated.  In the example above, the conclusion was not made with the consideration that Adolph Hitler is also a Psychopathic Fascist.

Likewise wise, your False Analogy leaves out the fact that Gravity can be measured, predicted and physically demonstrated - while the concept of a soul or spirit can not. Thus we can say Gravity is real, while the concept of a "soul" or "spirit" has not been shown to exists.

Like I said before, if you believe in spirit or soul then please show us some evidence.

[Light]

I'll just use 'spirit' interchangeable with 'soul' here.

The spirit, could be said to be an intangible, invisible force, which can effect material bodies.  Gravity, also an intangible, invisible force which can effect material bodies.

So then, if gravity is something easily accepted, why would the concept of a spirit be disregarded so easily?

If you believe in spirit or soul then please show us some evidence. 

Also, I would like to point out that you made a logical error from the get-go when you compared the properties of Gravity and souls: this is called the False Analogy Fallacy.  An example of the False Analogy Fallacy would be as follows:

Pope John Paul loved children and small animals, and he was a Roman Catholic.  Adolph Hitler loved children and small animals, and he was a Roman Catholic.  So, if Pope John Paul was a peaceful man, then we can assume that Adolph Hitler would be a peaceful man, too.

The False Analogy Fallacy occurs when people leave out certain important characteristics of the objects/people/etc.  whose properties are being enumerated.  In the example above, the conclusion was not made with the consideration that Adolph Hitler is also a Psychopathic Fascist.

Likewise wise, your False Analogy leaves out the fact that Gravity can be measured, predicted and physically demonstrated - while the concept of a soul or spirit can not. Thus we can say Gravity is real, while the concept of a "soul" or "spirit" has not been shown to exists.

Like I said before, if you believe in spirit or soul then please show us some evidence.

What if the evidence is people's apparent sense of agency, therefore control over some of their actions, since they keep referring to immaterial concepts such as "I" did this or "I" did that.   Where is this "I" located in the brain?  How many neurons does it take to create "I"?

[Asmodean]

What if the evidence is people's apparent sense of agency, therefore control over some of their actions, since they keep referring to immaterial concepts such as "I" did this or "I" did that.   Where is this "I" located in the brain?  How many neurons does it take to create "I"?

Why is your arm your arm? Is it attached to the "I"?

The answer is yes. The "I" you are trying to define is pretty much the sum-total of your body, its processes and functions. It is not just located in some obscure center of your brain, it is the whole thing. Even the toenails.

[Happy_Is_Good]

What if the evidence is people's apparent sense of agency, therefore control over some of their actions, since they keep referring to immaterial concepts such as "I" did this or "I" did that.   Where is this "I" located in the brain?  How many neurons does it take to create "I"?

My dog has a Sense of Agency, but I am not convinced this means my dog has a soul.

[Stevil]

I'm trying to point out, that people seem to readily accept and rely on concepts which are intangible, not quantifiable, and non observable all the time.  So then , why would believing in a soul, or spirit, seem like such a stretch?

I really feel that theist confuse what something that is conceptual is.
A concept does not exist.

It is like saying that a triangle exists.

If I ask you how big a triangle is, you wouldn't be able to give me a size because a triangle does not exist, it is merely a concept.
We can make objects or drawings to look like a triangle, to take on the characteristics of a triangle. These physical systems are far more complex than the triangle, they are not triangles, they merely look like the shape of the triangle concept.

Same thing with the soul it is merely a high level concept, it doesn't actually exist.

[Light]

I'm trying to point out, that people seem to readily accept and rely on concepts which are intangible, not quantifiable, and non observable all the time.  So then , why would believing in a soul, or spirit, seem like such a stretch?

I really feel that theist confuse what something that is conceptual is.
A concept does not exist.

It is like saying that a triangle exists.

If I ask you how big a triangle is, you wouldn't be able to give me a size because a triangle does not exist, it is merely a concept.
We can make objects or drawings to look like a triangle, to take on the characteristics of a triangle. These physical systems are far more complex than the triangle, they are not triangles, they merely look like the shape of the triangle concept.

Same thing with the soul it is merely a high level concept, it doesn't actually exist.

Yet people use such mathematical concepts to describe objective reality.   Which is why I don't understand how anyone can be a strict materialist. 

[Squid]

What did they conclude?  Several people believed there senses to be telling them they were 'in love'?   So if they did the study somewhere where the culture had no word 'love', but 'spirit' in place of that concept, I suppose they would conclude that those people were 'in spirit'.

As long as "spirit" is defined as an emotion or a combination thereof, I suppose the answer is yes.

Is there really not a single neurologist, shrink or even a radiology intern here? Someone who can omit all my "supposes" and "mays" and "probablies"?

squid has a background in this stuff but I think he's busy...I'm sure he'll feel compelled to comment the next time he has time to focus on commenting on the forum in depth.

I don't have a lot of time as I'm suppose to be packing for my 6 hour drive tomorrow up to Dallas for the weekend.  But I'll toss a bit of relevant stuff out there.

The neural correlates of spiritual/religious belief is a fairly new area of research but there has been some interesting studies.  One study done in 2007 by Wain and Spinella found that morality, religion and paranormal beliefs all have some overlap in that prefrontal areas of the brain play a large roll.  Muramoto (2004) proposed that specific areas of the prefrontal cortex are heavily involved in what he described as "religious activity".  He proposed specifically the medial prefrontal because of its role in error detection, social norm compliance and introspection.  Muramoto didn't just pull this idea out of thin air, previous research using PET scans by Azari et al. (2001) found that religious folks had a lot going on in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex while reading the 23rd Psalm and little activation in other areas such as the limbic areas.  Non-religious folks, however, did not show this activation.

There's much more research out there but unfortunately I don't have the time to do a full literature review.

References:

Wain, O. & Spinella, M. (2007). Executive functions in morality, religion, and paranormal beliefs.  Interantional Journal of Neuroscience, 117, 135-146.

Muramoto, O. (2004). The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in human religious activity.  Medical Hypotheses, 62, 479-485.

Azari, N., Nickel, J., Wunderlich, G., Niedeggen, M., Hefter, H., Tellman, L. et al. (2001). Neural correlates of religious experience.  European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 1649-1652.

[Stevil]

Yet people use such mathematical concepts to describe objective reality.   Which is why I don't understand how anyone can be a strict materialist. 

Of course we use conceptual models to describe reality. But you use philosophy to describe concepts as if those concepts were reality. How do you do this? You come up with a new term "metaphysical", its just like magic, poof, and a concept becomes real.

[Gawen]

Capital post, Squidly!!