Well, being crazy in love doesn't make you less crazy!

I guess, after he leaves you, every guy you meet after he leaves is set to the standards you had placed on him. And since no guy can meet those standards in one day, you just don't really give them a chance to move on. My darling Panda Bear, oh how I loved him so. He left my life on November 7th, 2007. After that, I don't really talk to many guys.

I want to move on, but no one in the world is like him.

I think I'll go lesbian or something.

Templeton wrote:

Gallstones wrote:Sounds good Templeton, and plausible----except for the DNA part.

DNA reading. Messages sent to DNA.

Well, there was a rather broad amount of information to pack in to a couple paragraphs.

Perhaps I should have stated that the genetic code is within the DNA. The body communicates through neuro-chemical messengers, from the brain to the genes in a feedback loop back to the brain.
Better?

I think the problem is the Lamarckian assumption you seem to be making; that is, "if we change our behavior then we change our genes". It's true that certain choices we make may influence the genetic expression of some genes (to some degree), or that our environment may physically change our genes through mutation, but it's not like the choices we make will change our genetic behaviors.

Unless you are simply referring to situations like habituation, which you referred to earlier with your "driving a car" example from another thread. In which case we are able to change our "genetic expression" in that we aren't limited to our fixed-action patterns, but our behavior is obviously still controlled by environmental variables - and that, of course, doesn't change our DNA.

Not facing reality is irrational most of the time. Like in this example, the first question to ask is, are they ever coming back? "i don't know so i am going to sit and hope" is probably the most irrational answer one can give. If you put enough effort into searching for them some answers should arise. And if they don't then you would think some effort has been put into covering their tracks so therefore it would be time to move on.

Wow I really appreciate the comments made here!! Your guys never dissapoint

Yea I found out one of the girls was actually left by her bf, he contacted her once in a blue moon, confessed his undying love, and then would disapear for another couples months saying "things are crazy but once I settle down I'll come see you." She hasn't heard from him in a year (except a few days every like 5 months) and still says she only wants him. I think it's got everything to do with the pathways in the brain- she thinks of him and gets the rush- sees him and the messages are filling her brain with the feel-good properties. A year is pretty extensive though. She's not ugly either (we're friends now lol) and I've been trying to figure her out. My theory is that when she realizes he's obviously using her for $ she'll forget about him (I'm trying to reverse the signal).

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Templeton wrote:

Gallstones wrote:Sounds good Templeton, and plausible----except for the DNA part.

DNA reading. Messages sent to DNA.

Well, there was a rather broad amount of information to pack in to a couple paragraphs.

Perhaps I should have stated that the genetic code is within the DNA. The body communicates through neuro-chemical messengers, from the brain to the genes in a feedback loop back to the brain.
Better?

I think the problem is the Lamarckian assumption you seem to be making; that is, "if we change our behavior then we change our genes". It's true that certain choices we make may influence the genetic expression of some genes (to some degree), or that our environment may physically change our genes through mutation, but it's not like the choices we make will change our genetic behaviors.

Unless you are simply referring to situations like habituation, which you referred to earlier with your "driving a car" example from another thread. In which case we are able to change our "genetic expression" in that we aren't limited to our fixed-action patterns, but our behavior is obviously still controlled by environmental variables - and that, of course, doesn't change our DNA.

It is important to look at how our brain and genes communicate in order to understand this process.
Also it is important not to assume that because Lamarck was refuted about 150 years ago that he was entirely incorrect. Lamarck believed that physiological changes would occur in a species simply by a change in behavioral pattern, and that change would begin to happen within the next generation. Lamarck's example was of the short necked giraffe and the long necked giraffe. Obviously at the time there was insufficient scientific knowledge to substantiate his claims. Also the problem was that the change that was expected to be seen was of a measurable physiological change. That did not happen.

What wasn't considered nor understood at the time was that before any physiological change could occur there needed to be a behavioral change to begin the process. (This is the slow process; something quicker would be an epigenetic change) A change in behavior necessitated by an environmental impact would begin a change in physiology.

In a previous discussion on this topic I used an example of a fish, one which most of us are familiar; where the fish swims into shallower water among the weeds, and rocks because food is more readily available. In order to navigate these shallower waters the fish would have to use its tail and fins as leverage to maneuver. If the fish was successful in this method of procuring food it would create a memory of the process, and would repeat the process. In repeating (How many times?) the process the fish would create a behavioral change that altered its genetic expression. When the fish reproduces what genetic traits would be passed on - the genes that are expressing at the time of conception.

Successive generations of this type of behavior would result in the fish developing stronger bones and muscles in its fins that would become appendages, and when the fish moved into even shallower and came out of the water it would develop lungs, and in thousands or millions of years we believe we know the rest of the story.

Many of us are familiar with how they brain and genes speak to each other. In the example of the fish it is at a simpler genealogical species that existed in a basic survival mode, with humans, because of the incredible amount of chemical messengers we produce (Emotions) as a species the process can be complicated to say the least.

Just too clear up the vernacular; we would not be changing genes or DNA, what we do is change genetic expression.

I used driving a car as a simple example of how we change behavior to environmental stressors. There really isn’t any difference in our behavior in finding a mate, as in the example of “women turning to stone” than the example of driving a car on a freeway or in the example of a fish finding food; these are all basic survival behaviors.

What makes us different as a species is that we have the ability (Those most don’t always use it) to be consciously aware of our behavioral choices. We can make choices that run contrary to basic survival instincts (behavioral patterns), as referenced earlier with altruism and abstinence.
Just the example of inkaStepa being aware of this behavior in other women means that she can exact control over her own genetic propensity to possibly behave in the same manner by becoming aware of the behavior. Her actions are also a behavior and in this process of understanding these behaviors she may also change genetic expression. What is truly awesome is that through consciousness we have the potential to become deterministic to our genetic evolution. Ha, lol, please excuse me if I add a caveat to that last statement; Theoretically speaking of course.

inkaStepa wrote:Wow I really appreciate the comments made here!! Your guys never dissapoint

Yea I found out one of the girls was actually left by her bf, he contacted her once in a blue moon, confessed his undying love, and then would disapear for another couples months saying "things are crazy but once I settle down I'll come see you." She hasn't heard from him in a year (except a few days every like 5 months) and still says she only wants him. I think it's got everything to do with the pathways in the brain- she thinks of him and gets the rush- sees him and the messages are filling her brain with the feel-good properties. A year is pretty extensive though. She's not ugly either (we're friends now lol) and I've been trying to figure her out. My theory is that when she realizes he's obviously using her for $ she'll forget about him (I'm trying to reverse the signal).

That situation could probably be explained by the "partial reinforcement effect". In a nut shell, generally people assume that if you want to maintain a specific behavior, in a person or animal, then the best way to do this is to reward (reinforce) them every time they perform a particular behavior. However, this isn't actually true - instead, if you want to maintain a certain behavior for a while and make it almost impossible to get rid of even in the absence of reward, then you provide rewards for the behavior at random intervals. As a real world example, take gambling on a pokies machine/one-armed bandit - these games are very addicting because they produce a reward periodically after you've played it a number of times.

We can easily see why this is the case as if we imagine one of these machines that gave a reward on every turn, then people would only play until the rewards stopped coming. After playing a few times without winning, then most people will assume that the machine is empty and move on. However, since the real machines can go for long periods of time without giving out rewards, it becomes impossible for the player to distinguish between a long gap between rewards and the complete absence of rewards. Some research also indicates that in situations like these, people actually start associating long gaps without rewards as rewards in themselves because the long gap essentially says, "The reward must be coming soon!".

(More info here, if you wanted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcem ... nforcement)

Incidentally, your explanation above is consistent with the theory I've just described above. Your analysis would be what happens in the brain, whereas mine looks at the behavioral effects.

Templeton wrote:
It is important to look at how our brain and genes communicate in order to understand this process.
Also it is important not to assume that because Lamarck was refuted about 150 years ago that he was entirely incorrect. Lamarck believed that physiological changes would occur in a species simply by a change in behavioral pattern, and that change would begin to happen within the next generation. Lamarck's example was of the short necked giraffe and the long necked giraffe. Obviously at the time there was insufficient scientific knowledge to substantiate his claims. Also the problem was that the change that was expected to be seen was of a measurable physiological change. That did not happen.

What wasn't considered nor understood at the time was that before any physiological change could occur there needed to be a behavioral change to begin the process. (This is the slow process; something quicker would be an epigenetic change) A change in behavior necessitated by an environmental impact would begin a change in physiology.

In a previous discussion on this topic I used an example of a fish, one which most of us are familiar; where the fish swims into shallower water among the weeds, and rocks because food is more readily available. In order to navigate these shallower waters the fish would have to use its tail and fins as leverage to maneuver. If the fish was successful in this method of procuring food it would create a memory of the process, and would repeat the process. In repeating (How many times?) the process the fish would create a behavioral change that altered its genetic expression. When the fish reproduces what genetic traits would be passed on - the genes that are expressing at the time of conception.

Successive generations of this type of behavior would result in the fish developing stronger bones and muscles in its fins that would become appendages, and when the fish moved into even shallower and came out of the water it would develop lungs, and in thousands or millions of years we believe we know the rest of the story.

Wait a minute, hold up. It is possible that you are aware of some fundamental scientific research that I don't know of, but I'm pretty sure you've got things backwards here - at least as it applies to most cases of behavioral evolution (and probably all, unless I have missed some important scientific work). If we are arguing that the fish has a genetic imperative to swim in a particular direction, then I can agree that environmental factors can influence the decisions made by the fish which will alter it's current behavior - this much is undeniably true (I don't think your use of the term "genetic expression" would accurately apply though). However, this does not create any inheritable material to pass on to its offspring. It does not work that way.

What happens is that you have a species of fish which has a tendency to swim in a particular direction. Through variation, evolution has equipped each individual with a slightly different tendency - so some might swim straight down stream, some might veer to the left a bit, some to the right, some might even simply sit still in the river (and I imagine those would die off quite quickly). But then you'd have the fish that have a tendency to swim against the current, and in doing so in this hypothetical situation, they end up having a greater access to food. Now, in this situation, the inheritable behavior is this genetic predisposition toward swimming upstream. In other words, If there was no genetic tendency to swim in that direction already present, and it was something that was produced entirely by environmental factors that lead to these fish swimming upstream - then it would not, and cannot, be passed on to their offspring (except through cultural transmission).

If you're referring to cultural transmission which leads to an evolutionary development of physical body parts, then there is no argument from me there - but your argument above is wrong. An interesting example of this that we can see happening before in real time is the New Caledonian crow behavior. They have evolved genetic tendencies which help them build tools for "fishing" grubs from trees which is passed on through standard evolutionary means, and not Lamarckian processes. Interestingly, they then learn their own "culture's" method of creating tools through cultural transmission so each population on the island have their own unique tools.

Templeton wrote:Many of us are familiar with how they brain and genes speak to each other. In the example of the fish it is at a simpler genealogical species that existed in a basic survival mode, with humans, because of the incredible amount of chemical messengers we produce (Emotions) as a species the process can be complicated to say the least.

Hmm.. you're being entirely unfair to fish (and animals in general) here. No animal relies purely on "instinct" or genetic behaviors to survive, unless perhaps if you go all the way back to single celled organisms (and even here I would argue against that). All animals are equipped with the tools to change their behaviors according to what the environment dictates, within reason. Humans, arguably, are better at it than most animals but this is a difference in degree, not kind. We have the same basic learning tools that all living things do, we have just had the fortune of a few lucky events in evolutionary history to push us forward.

Templeton wrote:What makes us different as a species is that we have the ability (Those most don’t always use it) to be consciously aware of our behavioral choices. We can make choices that run contrary to basic survival instincts (behavioral patterns), as referenced earlier with altruism and abstinence.
Just the example of inkaStepa being aware of this behavior in other women means that she can exact control over her own genetic propensity to possibly behave in the same manner by becoming aware of the behavior. Her actions are also a behavior and in this process of understanding these behaviors she may also change genetic expression. What is truly awesome is that through consciousness we have the potential to become deterministic to our genetic evolution. Ha, lol, please excuse me if I add a caveat to that last statement; Theoretically speaking of course.

Sure, but unfortunately our behaviors are determined by environmental laws as well as genetic ones

In reading over your posts it seems that we are dancing around the same issues, and talking about the same thing. The fish analogy is sound and I’ve been scratching my head wondering how you see it differently than what I’m writing, perhaps I should have been clearer. My point in mentioning Lamarck is that the physiological change in a species would have begun as a behavioral change in adaptation to an environmental impact. His hypothesis was that a physiological change would happen in the next generation, and as we know that is not the case. That is the meaning of my statement. The chemical processes of genetic expression and behavioral adaptation toward environmental impacts promotes this logic. Evolutionary changes would be slow or non-existent for species living in an environment in stasis, and faster in environments with high impacts, this is known as adaptive evolution, yet in any circumstance a behavioral change would be the initiator of a physiological change. Random genetic mutations aren’t really random from this perspective.

What are the contributory circumstances for mutating genes? Is there really randomness? There is always causation for any reaction in the body. Any genetic mutation is the result of a specific event or series of specific circumstances. Genetic expression is not random it is a direct causal response to an effect. Darwin’s survival of the fittest, or survival of the most likely to propagate, is not dependent on randomness. It is usually the healthiest of a species that passes their genes on to the next generation, and the ones that are most healthy are the ones that express behaviors that offer the greatest chance for success. As in my example of the fish foraging in shallower water, it went were the food was most plentiful and easiest to obtain. No random swimming direction dictated the choice, rather a need for survival, drives species toward a behavioral necessity.

Behavioral genes are fluid; they are so because of the need to be adaptive to changes in environment. Fluid behavioral genetics are the cog in the wheel of survival and evolution of species. If a species does not adapt it will not survive, and behavioral genes are what adapt to an environmental impact.
It seems we may be discussing semantics to some degree, but also perspective.

I'm sorry Templeton, I'm still not fully grasping your position..

Are you essentially saying that behaviors that we engage in can influence evolution? That is, if your fish (species) in the river chooses to inhabit a different part of the stream, then it will come under different selective pressures and evolve differently? So the evolution is still determined by evolutionary processes, but the behaviors change how these evolutionary processes manifest. If so, then obviously I agree.

Maybe it's your talk of "behavioral genes" adapting to the environment that's confusing me. Looking at the situation again, if you have a population of fish that live in one area of water, and then a group of them choose to swim somewhere else (to escape predators, to find food, for more space, etc), this would not be a result of a change in behavioral genes. They would have the same base behavioral laws that dictate how they behave, but the difference would be the environmental cues that act as the input change the output.

In other words, the behavioral genes of the fish would have a simple rule like: "If A, then do B, and if X, then do Y". One group of fish is exposed to environmental variable A so they do B (stay where they are). Another group is exposed to X so they do Y (move somewhere else). But there's no (significant) genetic difference between the two groups. That is, it's not like Group 1 has the behavioral genes for "stay where you are" and Group 2 has the behavioral genes for "go somewhere else".

Are we still discussing the same thing, or have I gone off on a completely unrelated issue?

If I am being unclear I offer my apologies.
I used the fish analogy to note an example of basic behavior from a general perspective, though perhaps I should be more specific. Using fish or any lower life form to analyze human behaviour is a gross injustice to man kind as human behavioral genetics are exponentially more complex. My analogy of the fish was to show how behavioral change is the initiator of physiological change from a basal perspective. It was foolish of me to use a lower life form as an analogous example of human behavior.

Most life forms behavioral functions are based in genetic programs with adaptive measures to increase the chances of survival. While humans share those genetic programs with other members of the animal kingdom, it is often stated that what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to reason. I do agree with that statement, but only in the obvious example that humans have greater reasoning ability because of greater cognitive processes, though from my perspective a bigger, and higher functioning brain is not the determining factor. A larger brain is the direct result of a greater consciousness on the brain.
I do realize that by presenting the concept of consciousness into this topic is like opening up the proverbial can of worms, and as is seen in many of these forums the discussions, unfortunately, end in a stalemate. Though while consciousness is not at this moment a measurable thing, (And don't we know, if it can't be measured, it scientifically does not exist. ) there is certainly enough research being done in the fields of consciousness studies to warrant consideration.

Our ability to be consciously aware of our actions and to use this awareness to change our behavior is what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Often we get caught in the Darwinist belief that human behaviors are only reactionary based upon environmental impacts just like every other member of the animal kingdom, but what we aren’t considering is that we are not like other members of the animal kingdom. Do we know of any other member of the animal kingdom that could possibly form a question of such complexity such as inkaStepa did in her initial post? Our conscious awareness causes us to reflect upon not only our own actions, but also upon the actions of others in our environment, and in doing so we have the ability to choose how to act and behave, rather than to react from a genetically programmed set of responses. This conscious ability is what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, therefore if a behavioral change is the initiator of physiological change than certainly humans have the ability to impact a determination evolutionarily.
Earlier you mentioned that I was being unfair to fish, respectfully I say we are being unfair to ourselves. There is far more potential to mankind than what we are given credit

Templeton wrote:What emotional need would precipitate a person, man or women, to abstain from an intimate relationship with other people while waiting for their lost/abdicated/dissipated love?

Inability to form connection to another person. There are people who are unable to form an emotional connection to someone while they still have an emotional connection to another, and without such an emotional connection, there is no particular desire to engage in the sexual act beyond the obvious physical drives.

It takes a fucking long time for some people to get over losing these connections.

Animavore wrote:I'm going to echo, at least partially, the people here who say it only happens in movies. 4 of my friends, and a few others that I know, have been in jail. The girlfriend says they will wait for them, and a lot of them do, but that doesn't mean they're not off riding a load of people until the person gets out.

It may be uncommon, but "never" is a very harsh word. I'd also say the emotional waiting does not necessarily preclude physical intimacy.

I know little about the science behind it, but maybe science doesn't have the answer in this case, and poetry or art is a better way of describing, how untruthful it can be.

One perspective is that the first love often happens during puberty. Teenagers have in a lot of ways a more flexible mind than adults, and therefore live more intensely. The sensation you get as a teenager from your love might be more than what you have as an adult. Scientists may differ with me, because i didn't run any tests. And there is a good chance i will agree with them and abandon my ideas on the issue.

Another perspective is that first times in love are more passionate, honest and fearless than the next times. There are no heartaches yet, or memories of earlier lovers. It isn't becoming too normal. But, of course there are lots of people who find their first true love after their 40s, or who start late (like me). Lots of people start with getting the blue every time and than choose for second best or stay single.

I think that someone should have pointed out that these women only exist in books, and in the real world humans in general are known to mate and couple. Especially in the western world, I don't buy there's many people waiting around at all.

Hypothetically if this situation were to exist at a high number I would say that it's a combination of evolutionary traits and socialization (you have this notion, after all, that we wait around when a true sociologist should have pointed out that in reality the individual was likely to have married someone else, as all statistics at every level of education or economic class imply you will be married if you live in the advanced western world).

I don't really have a problem with people waiting, whether they are real or in books. It only becomes a problem if they are unhappy. If they marry once, lose their partner somehow and then remain happily alone for the remainder of their days because that one person was special to them and they don't really want or need to replace them, I don't see the problem.

However, the scenario you suggest-- a young girl strung along by a clearly problematic boyfriend-- is different from a mature woman or man deciding not to partner with someone again. This, I agree, is trouble and I suspect is less to do with love than insecurity and other issues.