nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

IamMetaldave

BaZmO* wrote: »

This post is the 10,000th post

Pipped.

Mod: Continuation from the old thread, which is here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Carry

Candie wrote: »

While I appreciate the information, I know of another explanation for the whole love thing that I much prefer.

Magic.

I'm sure that magic is easily explained with chemistry, too

[Deleted User]

Carry wrote: »

I'm sure that magic is easily explained with chemistry, too

I wonder how significant it is that I met my partner through running, when I was already awash with endorphins!

Perhaps the secret to a lasting relationship is going for a run together, which we do.:)

Fourier

Something to be careful of is that these chemicals are correlated with these emotions, but not causal. There are people who feel intensely in love but show no signs of elevated levels of any dopamine etc when studied clinically.

Also the chemicals themselves are quite complex, Dopamine has a tendency to show up when one concentrates and focuses on anything. So for example you might be seeing Dopamine because you're focused on the person, rather than it being the reason you are focused on them.

Of course this ties into deeper issues like the "binding problem" etc where we don't know how or in what way the mind and brain are connected, i.e. from where your first person experiences come.

EDIT:
A decent explanation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/27/is-love-possible-without-serotonin-oxytocin-and-dopamine/#695abe537d00

Carry

Candie wrote: »

I wonder how significant it is that I met my partner through running, when I was already awash with endorphins!

Perhaps the secret to a lasting relationship is going for a run together, which we do.:)

Happy (endorphinal) people are simply more attractive, I'd say.
Keep on running, sweetie

And have some chocolates afterwards...

Carry

Fourier wrote: »

Something to be careful of with is that these chemicals are correlated with these emotions, but not causal. There are people who feel intensely in love but show no signs of elevated levels of any dopamine etc when studied clinically.

Also the chemicals themselves are quite complex, Dopamine has a tendency to show up when one concentrates and focuses on anything. So for example you might be seeing Dopamine because you're focused on the person, rather than it being the reason you are focused on them.

Of course this ties into deeper issues like the "binding problem" etc where we don't know how or in what way the mind and brain are connected, i.e. from where your first person experiences come.

EDIT:
A decent explanation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/27/is-love-possible-without-serotonin-oxytocin-and-dopamine/#695abe537d00

I know that the whole affair is more complex than my explanation above.
But it was conceived as a Valentines hangover (in a good way) and meant as fun.

I'm still convinced that all our emotions are interlinked with chemistry. One way or another.

New Home

Unless your name is Marvin and you're a paranoid android.

Fourier

Carry wrote: »

I know that the whole affair is more complex than my explanation above.
But it was conceived as a Valentines hangover (in a good way) and meant as fun.

Oh don't worry Carry, it's not so much to say anything is wrong with your post, just pointing out the complexities of the area. Never take what I say as a critique, think of me as an autocorrect robot

I'm still convinced that all our emotions are interlinked with chemistry. One way or another.

Oh they are, it's nature of the linkage we don't know, i.e. which causes which, when, how many ways can one emotion be caused, etc

Probably the answer can vary wildly depending on the emotion, in some cases the chemical might cause the emotion, in other cases the other way around.

LostinBlanch

New Home wrote: »

In 1995 Dolly Parton started a charity called "The Imagination Library" in memory of her father. The purpose of this charity is to post books to children from birth to five years of age, in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland and Australia, completely free of charge. Each child gets one book a month.

https://imaginationlibrary.com/

As of the last count, the number of books donated amounted to 115,144,128.

Coinicidentally, the first Irish branch has opened up in Tallaght.

Carry

New Home wrote: »

Unless your name is Marvin and you're a paranoid android.

I had to google Marvin, found a pizza place and this on Urban Dictionary:

Marvin is a generally sweet guy, falls in love easily. He's soooooo funny, he can be cocky.
That guy doesn't always make the smartest decisions, though.
He has a great body physique, amazing talent at making out, most likely tall.
He has a nice cock. =
Marvin is one of those guys you'll never , ever forget. He's an amazing friend, boyfriend...just a great companion of the opposite sex.

Can you please elaborate?

Ah, looked further: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! Not on my cultural radar, I'm afraid.

Fourier wrote: »

Oh don't worry Carry, it's not so much to say anything is wrong with your post, just pointing out the complexities of the area. Never take what I say as a critique, think of me as an autocorrect robot

I always take your comments as constructive critique. And please keep doing that. I knew while writing this love chemistry comment somewhere someone knows the proper science behind all that. I'm glad it was you because I trust you know your stuff

(I'm going all dopamine now...

)

Fourier wrote: »

Oh they are, it's nature of the linkage we don't know, i.e. which causes which, when, how many ways can one emotion be caused, etc

Probably the answer can vary wildly depending on the emotion, in some cases the chemical might cause the emotion, in other cases the other way around.

In this love case I think that originally the hormones came first and created situations to ensure that the procreation of a species or/and the food provision is secured. After all the idea of romantic love in our modern European society was only invented a few hundred years ago.

Though here you are right, because then it gets complicated.

Looking at my cat that entered my life as a starved and injured little kitten a few years ago, and that I never wanted (had a beloved dog), that little bugger made me fall for him badly eventually.

I didn't find another home for him so I kept him, brought him to the vet, fed him with the finest food (:rolleyes:) and he just charmed me with his affection. He cuddles up (oxytocin), makes me feel happy when he is happy (endorphines), makes me silly when I'm worried because he is out and about all night doing whatever cats do (dopamine, adrenaline).

So how come? I wasn't "in love" with him in the first place, but eventually with his behaviour the neurotransmitters got working.

And no, it wasn't love magic, I resisted a long time, it was his behaviour that created those hormones/neurotransmitters that made sure I cared for him.
Bloody bugger. He is like furry chocolate...

I know, scientifically it's even more complicated. I have degrees in psychology, sociology and political science and still know feck all how people tick.

mzungu

The latest plan to fight malaria involves making genetically modified male mosquitoes with self-limiting genes to stop Malaria. During sex, the female mosquitoes will receive the self-limiting gene. This results in having their offspring die before reaching adulthood, which is when they start biting humans. That means that mosquitoes who are capable of spreading malaria will die.

Bill Gates has contributed $4million to this project. It is hoped that it will wipe out malaria within a generation.

[Deleted User]

mzungu wrote: »

The latest plan to fight malaria involves making genetically modified male mosquitoes with self-limiting genes to stop Malaria. During sex, the female mosquitoes will receive the self-limiting gene. This results in having their offspring die before reaching adulthood, which is when they start biting humans. That means that mosquitoes who are capable of spreading malaria will die.

Bill Gates has contributed $4million to this project. It is hoped that it will wipe out malaria within a generation.

Will it kill mozzies before they procreate?

Isn't that messing around with the food chain a lot?

New Home

Carry wrote: »

I had to google Marvin, found a pizza place and this on Urban Dictionary:

Can you please elaborate?

Ah, looked further: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! Not on my cultural radar, I'm afraid.

Carry wrote: »

In this love case I think that originally the hormones came first and created situations to ensure that the procreation of a species or/and the food provision is secured. After all the idea of romantic love in our modern European society was only invented a few hundred years ago.

Though here you are right, because then it gets complicated.

Looking at my cat that entered my life as a starved and injured little kitten a few years ago, and that I never wanted (had a beloved dog), that little bugger made me fall for him badly eventually.

I didn't find another home for him so I kept him, brought him to the vet, fed him with the finest food (:rolleyes:) and he just charmed me with his affection. He cuddles up (oxytocin), makes me feel happy when he is happy (endorphines), makes me silly when I'm worried because he is out and about all night doing whatever cats do (dopamine, adrenaline).

So how come? I wasn't "in love" with him in the first place, but eventually with his behaviour the neurotransmitters got working.

And no, it wasn't love magic, I resisted a long time, it was his behaviour that created those hormones/neurotransmitters that made sure I cared for him.
Bloody bugger. He is like furry chocolate...

I know, scientifically it's even more complicated. I have degrees in psychology, sociology and political science and still know feck all how people tick.

No, Carry, it was magic.

Or maybe it's the fact that he showed affection and that he loved you that stimulated your "mirror hormones*" and generated a similar response in you.

*Yup, that's a scientifically technical term. Honest. Well ok, if it isn't it should be. So there.

Also, read THGTTG, all five volumes of the trilogy. It's worth it. And you'll understand why NASA found a dolphin on Jupiter.

https://i.imgur.com/zCJxxUe.mp4

Ken.

mzungu wrote: »

The latest plan to fight malaria involves making genetically modified male mosquitoes with self-limiting genes to stop Malaria. During sex, the female mosquitoes will receive the self-limiting gene. This results in having their offspring die before reaching adulthood, which is when they start biting humans. That means that mosquitoes who are capable of spreading malaria will die.

Bill Gates has contributed $4million to this project. It is hoped that it will wipe out malaria within a generation.

Deleted User wrote: »

Will it kill mozzies before they procreate?

Isn't that messing around with the food chain a lot?

I heard on futureproof something that will blow your mind. We gave malaria to the mosquitoes. They only get it when they bite someone already with it and then pass it on to the next person they bite.

Eradicate humans and malaria dies with us or very soon after.

Poochie05

mzungu wrote: »

The latest plan to fight malaria involves making genetically modified male mosquitoes with self-limiting genes to stop Malaria. During sex, the female mosquitoes will receive the self-limiting gene. This results in having their offspring die before reaching adulthood, which is when they start biting humans. That means that mosquitoes who are capable of spreading malaria will die.

Bill Gates has contributed $4million to this project. It is hoped that it will wipe out malaria within a generation.

Also, only female mosquitoes bite. So discriminate and don’t splat the boys, recognisable by their feathery antennae! All they do is feed off nectar from flowers

Fourier

Sorry for the delay, this required a bit of thought to write without a neurology info dump. Note I am not a neurologist, this is from reading neurology texts and talking to neurologists. Also my knowledge of biochemistry is an extension of my knowledge of chemistry from a physicists perspective and might not accurately reflect how a true biochemist would view things. This is especially important as currently we don't know if chemistry reduces to physics (a topic about which several books have been written)

Carry wrote: »

In this love case I think that originally the hormones came first and created situations to ensure that the procreation of a species or/and the food provision is secured. After all the idea of romantic love in our modern European society was only invented a few hundred years ago.

Though here you are right, because then it gets complicated.

Looking at my cat that entered my life as a starved and injured little kitten a few years ago, and that I never wanted (had a beloved dog), that little bugger made me fall for him badly eventually.

I didn't find another home for him so I kept him, brought him to the vet, fed him with the finest food (:rolleyes:) and he just charmed me with his affection. He cuddles up (oxytocin), makes me feel happy when he is happy (endorphines), makes me silly when I'm worried because he is out and about all night doing whatever cats do (dopamine, adrenaline).

So how come? I wasn't "in love" with him in the first place, but eventually with his behaviour the neurotransmitters got working.

And no, it wasn't love magic, I resisted a long time, it was his behaviour that created those hormones/neurotransmitters that made sure I cared for him.
Bloody bugger. He is like furry chocolate...

I know, scientifically it's even more complicated. I have degrees in psychology, sociology and political science and still know feck all how people tick.

So the first thing to say is that Neurobiology is a complex subject (duh! you say). I'll start with an example that isn't Neurotransmitters like Dopamine.

A good example is the so called "optimism bias" humans are supposed to experience, the idea that we are unrealistically optimistic. This was originally supposed to be shown by studies from T. Sharot and her team around 2011 and is often mentioned in discussions about human cognitive biases. However later authors found that the same methods would also find a hypothetical perfectly rational agent to be "too optimistic" and so there was doubt that humans actually were too optimistic. Even later studies found that if there is an optimism bias it's not a result of us thinking we are special, i.e. "I'm going to win that car, get that scholarship, get that lad to go out with me", but just an accidental biproduct of a slight error in how we sample data for learning. Then an even later study showed that that "slight error" in our learning varied from person to person in such a way that groups of people balanced each other out so that the group as a whole learned extremely efficiently. A bunch of people biased in a variety of ways resulted in a group that achieved solutions faster than a group of 'unbiased' individuals:

Lefebvre et al, Nature Hum. Behav. 1:0067(2017) wrote:

An intriguing possibility is that multiple ‘sub-optimal’ reinforcement learning strategies are maintained in the natural population to ensure an ‘optimal’ learning repertoire, flexible enough to solve, at the group level, the value learning and exploration–exploitation trade-off

So in the popular media what one hears as
"Humans are overly optimistic"
is actually:
"Humans potentially possess evolved distributed learning biases to optimise group learning strategies, in certain individuals this learning bias may at a high level result in overly optimistic thinking when isolated from the group as an individual"

Such complexities are at play in all supposed human cognitive biases, this is just the simplest. Often the original authors had a mathematically flawed or overly simplified model of "being rational". Also the problem is that there are many mathematical ways of modelling rationality. A well known example is the research of Z. J. Wang who studied the human bias known as the "carry over" effect. I don't want to overload the post and explain what this is, it doesn't matter too much, it was just my entry into the subject since it connected with my area. When modeled using what's called Kolmogorov probability (the kind used in betting on horses and most other applications of probability) this behaviour was irrational. However when the probabilities were changed to be more like those in Quantum Theory the "carry over" effect was perfectly rational.

So cognitive biases are subtle, debated and hard to pin down. You'd think that being rational would be easy to assess, not so.

The function of neurotransmitters is 100 times as subtle, debated and hard to pin down.

Imagine a sequence of connected computers that all day long control a massive farm and communicated via over 500 different signal frequencies. When you ask the computer cluster to describe the cows, you notice that the cluster on the NorthEast of the farm starts communicating 1.4 times faster with the SouthWestern one and ups the strength of the 2.4 GHz signal (Bluetooth) and lowers the strength of signals between 1.1 and 1.3 GHz. Now imagine you're somebody who doesn't actually know how computers work, you can just measure signal strengths and frequencies and where the signals are going. That's were we are with the brain.

Dopamine is simply one of over 500 Neurotransmitters. It's the analogue of the 2.4 GHz signal. It's upped in some situations in some people. In certain situations it's upped in nearly all people. However what does it do exactly? Is it the cause or just the mechanism used? We don't know. My computer uses bluetooth frequencies to talk to my microphone and wifi frequencies to talk to my modem, however Bluetooth frequencies don't cause Skype to work they're one mechanism or part of its functioning. Similarly with Dopamine and its associated behaviours.

It's even more difficult when connecting these things to experienced emotions, due to the Subjective Unity of Perception problem, the 2013 article of J. Feldman of Caltech university describes this well:

Feldman wrote:

At the other extreme, the Subjective Unity of Perception (Third section) is an instance of the mind–body problem (Chalmers 1996) and remains mysterious. There is no plausible neural story on why we experience the world in the way that we do, although there are promising results on the neural correlates of consciousness.

Biases are complex, Neurotransmitters far more so. Your actual experienced feelings? Currently off the map in terms of "Here be dragons"-level ignorance.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Will it kill mozzies before they procreate?

Isn't that messing around with the food chain a lot?

Aye, there are ethical concerns there alright. I do hope they have thought things through on that front. The idea is cool, but you wouldn't want it to create an even bigger problem.

Watch this space I guess!

Conchir

The Mars rover Opportunity just finished its 15 year mission. The original plan was for 90 sols (Martian days); it actually ended up doing 5352 sols. That's 8 Martian years.

It is the rover with the most driving distance, either on the Moon or Mars, having driven over 45km. The Soviet lunar rover Lunokhod 2 held the record previously, at just under 40km.

It officially ended its mission on the 12th of February, having been non-responsive since June last year. It's thought that a storm might have caused its solar panels to become covered in sand, starving it of power.

(comic for another Mars rover, Spirit, but the sentiment works

storker

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

A dog extracts more information from smelling a pile of excrement than a human does from reading the Irish independent.

Probably says as much about the Indo as it does about as dog's sense of smell...

Conchir

I read a National Geographic article the other day about early NASA Earth and Moon satellites and the photos they took. It has never occurred to me that in the 60s, these satellites they used to take photos of the moon and of places on earth had to use actual film. It's obvious when you think about it, but it just never occurred to me.

The CORONA program was a spying operation taking satellite photos of the Soviet Union. To get the film back, the satellite would drop a heat-shielded capsule, complete with thrusters and parachutes, with the roll of film inside. An airplane would then hook the parachute as it came down; failing that, a helicopter would retrieve the capsule from the ocean.

For the Lunar observer satellites in the lead up to the Apollo program, they couldn't send the actual film back. Instead, the film was developed directly on the satellite. Once developed, a scanner recorded the exact brightness levels of the photograph, in tiny sections. The levels were then transmitted via radio back to Earth, where the data would be analysed, allowing NASA to re-create the images. Some of the images are stunning, it's crazy to think they were taken in the 1960s, developed on a satellite by a completely mechanised process, and then sent back to Earth via radio waves. The film used was 70mm Kodak film, which is really high resolution. The vertical lines are an artefact of the scanning and image recreation processes.

PingTing comes for Fire

First words spoken on the moon were “contact light.” by Buzz Aldrin, as the Eagle touched down on the lunar surface.

Hasselblad cameras were left behind(twelve of fourteen were) which had taken on average 1500 pictures each on the moon(Film was taken obviously)

Three lunar rovers were left behind. These filmed the assent of the lunar module - footage sent back to Earth.

Apollo missions to the moon left behind them such items as - a gold plated telescope, an Apolla 1 patch(honoring memory of White, Grissom, Chaffee).

They also left behind them, and I like this, medallions honoring Russian cosmonauts, including Vladimir Komarov and Yuri Gagarin, both of whom died in flight in 1967 and 1968, respectively.

Their craft barely had power to get back into orbit of the moon so they had leave virtually everything. Cameras, scientific equipment, rovers. They brought as much rock samples as they could.

The computers powering Apollo 11 had less power than a mobile phone.

Lunar dust builds up at the rate of one millimeter per thousand years. In a million years, all items on the moon will be under a meter of dust. If humans start mining on the moon then, with the rate of dust movement, be buried much sooner.

Chancer3001

45km covered by the robot in over 5000 days doesnt seem very impressive?

Wibbs

PingTing comes for Fire wrote: »

First words spoken on the moon were “contact light.” by Buzz Aldrin, as the Eagle touched down on the lunar surface.

Well it also depends where you define "on the moon" P. When Buzz called "contact light" they were still in flight. Attached to three of the landing pads there was a wire probe that hung down about two metres below the craft. You can see them in this pic of the Lander in flight.

There were concerns that the rocket engine would whip up so much dust that the astronauts would lose sight of the ground in the final critical seconds(with some landings this was an issue), so these would let them know they had made contact. There were concerns about the rocket itself that if they landed with it running there could be blowback that could over pressure the engine. So the procedure was contact light, cut power and drop the last few feet to the surface. Armstrong and Aldrins landing was quite gentle, others dropped more and you can see it in the vids. So if by one the moon we mean actually sat on the moon, the first words were more like; "OK, engine stop".

Three lunar rovers were left behind. These filmed the assent of the lunar module - footage sent back to Earth.

They did, only with not much success until the final mission Apollo 17. The problem was there was a five second delay(IIRC) between the rover camera operator on Earth pushing a button and the camera moving on the Moon. For the last mission the chap involved laid out a plan second by second going by the astronauts checklist when they'd actually hit the go button and lift off and pushed his button at the time he reckoned the camera would pan up and zoom out with the craft on the moon. And he nailed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs

an Apolla 1 patch(honoring memory of White, Grissom, Chaffee).

That tragedy showed how rushed they were and how they had to come up with completely new solutions to Kennedy's promise of going to the Moon. When he made that speech the Americans hadn't even got a man in orbit yet. Previous spacecraft to Apollo, like Mercury and Gemini were tiny craft, Basically seats and a control panel. The Apollo command module had to be bigger to house three guys and all their stuff for over a week. Even then it was tiny. Like about the internal space of an SUV. Zero G gave them some extra space and it was the first spacecraft built where the astronaut could float somewhat free.

In this rush the first command module design had multiple flaws. Things like sloppy manufacturing where things like bolts, even tools were found left behind. The hatch being the major issue. It opened inwards and had two doors, because they almost lost an astronaut, ironically Grissom, when he blew the hatch on a Mercury mission and the capsule flooded and sank to the bottom of the ocean. He barely got out. So they reckoned the Apollo hatch would be safer. These flaws concerned the astronauts and there is this pic taken which shows their concerns.

The tragedy itself happened on a "routine" ground test. The so called "space vehicle plugs out integrated test" where the entire vehicle Saturn V and all minus fuel was run on internal systems right up to a simulated launch. Here's a copy I have of the checklist/manual from that very day.

The command module was pressurised with pure oxygen at a higher pressure than the outside atmosphere. Oxygen at those pressures means everything is pretty much flammable, even metal burns. The early design was also full of highly flammable material like Velcro, which apparently becomes near explosive in that environment. It also meant that they didn't have the strength to fight the pressure and open the hatch from the inside. So when there was a spark from an uninsulated wire somewhere near their feet, the whole inside went up like a Roman candle in a matter of seconds. Ground crew tried hard to get to them, even suffered burns, but were beaten back by the flames.

It held back Apollo for around 18 months, but the inquiry showed up all the issues and made them work harder to make things safer, so in the end contributed massively to them finally making it to the moon and back.

The computers powering Apollo 11 had less power than a mobile phone.

Yep, far less and the computers were another thing they had to invent on the spot. They had to miniaturise them down from the size of a room to the size of a large suitcase. And come up with software to run it. The read only memory was so called rope memory, which was actually hand woven and it could take weeks even months to "write" a sequence of code. Mad stuff.

mikhail

Chancer3001 wrote: »

45km covered by the robot in over 5000 days doesnt seem very impressive?

It's not. However, considering it's 45km over rough terrain while being remote controlled with an 8 minute lag, and with no possibility of a do-over if it got stuck, it's bloody marvelous.

Carry

About food:

The first known (European) textbook for professional cooks was written in 1570 by the Italian Bartolomeo Scappi, who was chef for five popes. He invented among other things the Zabaglione, a fluffy dessert creme with Masala wine. He was also the first who mentioned Mozzarella as part of a recipe.

Though there are older printed recipe books from the 14. and 15. century, mainly from Germany, France and Denmark. There is even a medieval cookbook from England (The Form of Cury) by the chefs for Richard II – it contains the oldest recorded recipe for Ravioli, of all things.

The oldest surviving general recipe book in Europe however, De re coquinaria, was written in the 3. or 4. century by Marcus Gavius Apicus – the Romans loved a decent feast (up to 30 courses for a meal).

Worldwide, the oldest known recipe book, written in Sanskrit, is the Vasavarajeyam from India. It is thought to be about 3500 years old and describes mainly vegan dishes.

A bit younger is the Chinese Liji that was written about 2500 years ago and contains the original "Eight Treasures" recipe that you can still find on the menu of your local Chinese restaurant.

The oldest written recipe ever found was immortalised in cuneiform script about 4000 years ago in Southern Mesopotamia and decribed how to brew beer (of, course...). It is part of an ode to the Sumerian goddess for the art of brewing, Ninkasi.

The oldest prepared food ever found is bread. The oldest loaf (or what was left of it) was unearthed by archaeologists last year in Jordan. It is 14,400 years old. It was a wholemeal flatbread, apparently eaten with grilled meat, probably the first known sandwich or doner kebab.

KathleenGrant

No fantastic stuff to impart, just a wow! This is a great thread.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Carry wrote: »

In this love case I think that originally the hormones came first and created situations to ensure that the procreation of a species or/and the food provision is secured. After all the idea of romantic love in our modern European society was only invented a few hundred years ago.

Did the invention of romantic love suddenly create these hormones? All that happened a few hundred years ago in Europe was that aristocrats, to a limited extent, started to accept love marriages rather than arranged marriages. I suppose that peasants just fell in love.

Even in countries with arranged marriages and polygamy love stories abound in fiction and in real life, for instance the Taj Mahal is a monument to love.

Some nice Chinese love stories here.

http://www.chinawhisper.com/10-greatest-chinese-love-stories-ever/

KathleenGrant

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Did the invention of romantic love suddenly create these hormones? All that happened a few hundred years ago in Europe was that aristocrats, to a limited extent, started to accept love marriages rather than arranged marriages. I suppose that peasants just fell in love.

Even in countries with arranged marriages and polygamy love stories abound in fiction and in real life, for instance the Taj Mahal is a monument to love.

Some nice Chinese love stories here.

http://www.chinawhisper.com/10-greatest-chinese-love-stories-ever/

Love is very much over-rated. Respect in a relationship beats love for me.

[Deleted User]

KathleenGrant wrote: »

Love is very much over-rated. Respect in a relationship beats love for me.

I don't think love can be overrated - and you can have both at the same time - besides, I think it would be rare for a person who loves you to simultaneously think so little of you that they treat you disrespectfully!

Wibbs

Carry wrote: »

The oldest written recipe ever found was immortalised in cuneiform script about 4000 years ago in Southern Mesopotamia and decribed how to brew beer (of, course...). It is part of an ode to the Sumerian goddess for the art of brewing, Ninkasi.

Well duh C, we got our priorities straight early on.

The oldest prepared food ever found is bread. The oldest loaf (or what was left of it) was unearthed by archaeologists last year in Jordan. It is 14,400 years old. It was a wholemeal flatbread, apparently eaten with grilled meat, probably the first known sandwich or doner kebab.

We have indirect evidence of even earlier prepared foods, coming from all places dental tartar stuck between teeth on preserved skulls. It very basically "fossilises" over time and a set of Neandertal teeth from around 70,000 years ago they found evidence of baked grains, so it looks like they were preparing wild grains either as a thick soup, but more likely rough biscuits of a sort.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Did the invention of romantic love suddenly create these hormones? All that happened a few hundred years ago in Europe was that aristocrats, to a limited extent, started to accept love marriages rather than arranged marriages. I suppose that peasants just fell in love.

Even in countries with arranged marriages and polygamy love stories abound in fiction and in real life, for instance the Taj Mahal.

Yeah, I never quite bought the whole romantic love was invented by European troubadours in the late medieval. The concept might have been, but built on an existing human phenomenon. There are certainly tales of spousal devotion going way back before then.

Maybe it's like the perception of colour? IE it appears colours are only properly seen after they're labeled. EG blue is one of the last colours to have been widely labelled. It was just another "green" for much of human history. There are a few remote cultures today who have no word for "blue" and if you show them blocks of green with a blue block among them they can't seem to see it as different, whereas we'd immediately see and point it out. Maybe romantic love falls into this category. That before it was labelled it wasn't seen, but was an unlabelled part of general sexual attraction and couple bonding?

KathleenGrant

Candie wrote: »

I don't think love can be overrated - and you can have both at the same time - besides, I think it would be rare for a person who loves you to simultaneously think so little of you that they treat you disrespectfully!

Candie, you are so right. The lack of respect was most likely a lack of love.