The love drug.

Michael 345 said:
A poetic pigeon? I'd like to see that :}
Click to expand...
LOL, that would be weird. Birds do sing though. The Nightingale is a prized song-bird, not only by humans, but I'm sure also by other Nightingales.

However, pigeons and most other animals do (consciously?) select their mate by his symmetry and abilities to display his dominant status among his peers.

A male peacock in full display is a awesome sight, which surely does not go unnoticed by a possible mate, and may well be causal to the production of dopamine in the female. There is clear evidence that even birds select or reject possible mates based on physical properties and abilities, i.e. being desirable or unsuitable.
 
Last edited:
Regardless, ☺would be the same. Dopamine producing glands in the brain can be exhausted by excessive use of drugs, leaving the user needing medical help. It could be the best drug in the world, but would stills produce ☺ problems.
 
Counter said:
Regardless, ☺would be the same. Dopamine producing glands in the brain can be exhausted by excessive use of drugs, leaving the user needing medical help. It could be the best drug in the world, but would stills produce ☺ problems.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why we always speak of living a balanced life, eating a balanced diet. Excessive use of anything is always harmful to the brain's and body's chemical balance.

Everyone loves sugar (sweets) from insects to humans, but we all know that ingesting too much sugar is unhealthy.
And so it is with all chemical substances which the body needs to function properly. Too much of anything usually results in adverse effects .
"Too much" (of anything) is not parsimonious to "efficient function" of other things. Even in the abstract, IMO.
 
Write4U said:
A fundamental chemical transmitter which indicates the state of parsimony or tries to achieve it. It does not act alone, there are at least five other chemicals associated with the "effects" of dopamine on the organisms state of feelings of parsimony.
Click to expand...

A causal factor underpinned by other causal factor.
Seems to be a recurring theme in your writing.

Apparently you missed the highlighted (by me) part of the Abstract from the link.
Uncontrolled high levels of dopamine may have adverse affects in the direction of gratification. If you have information to the contrary, show it now!
That's wrong, Dopamine is clearly causal as a trnasmitter of information. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...sex_addiction_gambling_motivation_reward.html
Click to expand...
Ditto above

Seems to me the result is always in the direction of greater satisfaction.
You haven't proven anything with your link. "I'm still standing"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors .

It has nothing to do with Dopamine which has been proven to exist has been proven to exist and is already present in even the simplest organisms.
Click to expand...
I am not doubting it exists. I am doubting you can proceed from this to discussions of love etc while avoiding all the type I & II errors you have laid out before yourself.

So now you as "layman" are going to declare that people who have spent lifetimes on the subject are wrong?
Click to expand...
People who have spent lifetimes counting the number of chemical reactions that have occurred as their life's work?
Are they different from those tireless scientists who are busy working out how long a person has to run on the same spot before they tunnel to the other side of the earth, or how far the planet would change axis if everyone in china jumped at the same time?

You clearly have no idea what Hazen was talking about. I'm betting you haven't watched the clip yet. btw. If you have , you are purposely twisting his words. Nowhere did he claim "definitive counts", except where definite counts were obtained, which allow for educated statistical estimates.
Click to expand...
You clearly have no idea that he is talks are purely in the range of theory.

And this is the scientific proof I asked you for? Poetry?
Click to expand...
Its interesting that when you are faced with the choice of "accuracy" or (so called) "science", you opt for the latter.
 
Paisley-Parsimonious Percival-Parrslee Pigion the poet of potentia place pheasant town pleasentville
latest
 
Musika said:
You clearly have no idea that he is talks are purely in the range of theory.
Click to expand...
At one time the Higgs field was pure theory, however the mathematical application of the theory proved the theory if the existence of bosons.

All science starts with theory.

But I disagree that Hazen was speaking just theory. He clearly demonstrated that chemical interactions of bio-molecules do produce more complex biochemical structures, and that is at least one proof of the possibility of life being able to emerge from the combinatory richness of bio-chemicals at planetary scales and time. It is finding the "bottle-neck" which so far eludes our knowledge, not unsurprisingly if you try to find the answer in a laboratory.
 
Write4U said:
At one time the Higgs field was pure theory, however the mathematical application of the theory proved the theory if the existence of bosons.

All science starts with theory.
Click to expand...

But not all theory ends with science.
In fact, to suggest otherwise makes science illegitimate.

But I disagree that Hazen was speaking just theory. He clearly demonstrated that chemical interactions of bio-molecules do produce more complex biochemical structures,
Click to expand...
Yes, some things are established

and that is at least one proof of the possibility
Click to expand...
If one can't demonstrate how its possible, it would be more accurate to talk of it as a proof of an idea ... if one feels too attached to attached to disregard the word "proof".

of life being able to emerge from the combinatory richness of bio-chemicals at planetary scales and time. It is finding the "bottle-neck" which so far eludes our knowledge, not unsurprisingly if you try to find the answer in a laboratory.
Click to expand...
Demonstrations occur both in and outside the laboratory. If you have an idea that can't be demonstrated anywhere, you just have an idea. Science is particularly rigorous about this.
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
But not all theory ends with science.
In fact, to suggest it otherwise makes science illegitimate.
Click to expand...
And that's why science demands rogorous testing and the demonstartion that the results can be duplicated, using the same experiments?
Yes, some things are established
If one can't demonstrate how its possible, it would be more accurate to talk of it as a proof of an idea ... if one feels too attached to disregard the word "proof".
Click to expand...
Right, no "idea" is automatically accepted, without demonstration the idea has merit
Demonstrations occur both in and outside the laboratory. If you have an idea that can't be demonstrated anywhere, you just have an idea. Science is particularly rigorous about this.
Click to expand...
Precisely, this is the reason for science establishing the requirement of falsification or confirmation.

Einstein's idea that light must bend in a strong gravitational field was not proven until years later, when in the greater laboratory of the universe the conditions were just right to test the "idea" (and of course its mathematical explanation why this should be so).

Such an experiment cannot be performed in a lab, it requires specific universal conditions which make the experiment possible to begin with.
 
Write4U said:
And that's why science demands rogorous testing and the demonstartion that the results can be duplicated, using the same experiments?
Right, no "idea" is automatically accepted, without demonstration the idea has merit
Click to expand...

So make up your mind.
Demonstration of results or demonstration of ideas?


Precisely, this is the reason for science establishing the requirement of falsification or confirmation.

Einstein's idea that light must bend in a strong gravitational field was not proven until years later, when in the greater laboratory of the universe the conditions were just right to test the "idea" (and of course its mathematical explanation why this should be so).

Such an experiment cannot be performed in a lab, it requires specific universal conditions which make the experiment possible to begin with.
Click to expand...
So you are left with an idea you can't demonstrate. Science doesn't do poetic licenses I'm afraid.
 
Write4U said:
A male peacock in full display is a awesome sight, which surely does not go unnoticed by a possible mate, and may well be causal to the production of dopamine in the female. There is clear evidence that even birds select or reject possible mates based on physical properties and abilities, i.e. being desirable or unsuitable.
Click to expand...
Peacock is a textbook example of Runaway Sexual Selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway
 
DaveC426913 said:
Peacock is a textbook example of Runaway Sexual Selection
Click to expand...

Our Australian Prime Minister is called Peacock and while he was selected by his political party I don't think it was sexual

He turned out to be a show pony lame duck

:)
 
Musika said:
So make up your mind.
Demonstration of results or demonstration of ideas?
Click to expand...
Demonstration that the idea has merit is what I said.
Twisting sentences to confuse and mislead without a logical argument, is dishonest.
So you are left with an idea you can't demonstrate. Science doesn't do poetic licenses I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
I said that Einstein's idea that light bends WAS proven, it just took some years for the proper alignment to occur.
There was no poetic license in Einstein's proposition.

It took 20 years on earth to build the collider able to simulate normal universal occurrences. And the idea of the existence of bosons was confirmed to be correct.

In science do not expect instant gratification. That miraculous transformation is claimed by theists, "if only you believed, you'd understand"
 
Michael 345 said:
Our Australian Prime Minister is called Peacock and while he was selected by his political party I don't think it was sexual

He turned out to be a show pony lame duck ......:)
Click to expand...
That was because he is a human pretending to be a peacock.
 
Write4U said:
Demonstration that the idea has merit is what I said.
Twisting sentences to confuse and mislead without a logical argument, is dishonest.
Click to expand...

That's what you said in the 2nd sentence ... not the 1st.
Hence the suggestion to make up your mind.

In science do not expect instant gratification.
Click to expand...
Yet here you are, downplaying the distinctions between theory and demonstration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top