funnily enough most animals know what species they are by looking at the parents, then looking for similar later in life, thats why frogs dont breed with toads etc, also why when breeding hybrid falcons (apart from AI) what we do is let a gyr raise a peregrine chick and a peregrine raise a gyr chick, the gyr chick thinks its a peregrine and the peregrine chick thinks its a gyr, so when they see each other they believe they are the same species and they will readily breed.
Its a clever quirk of nature, parents survived long enough to breed therefore they are the same species and have strong genes so look for similar to improve the chance of your own offsprings survival. their are many variables but basically we learn what to look for from our parents, although as i said that is putting it in very simple terms.
love for food is also an addiction although it is different, we have evolved for millions of years to seek out food with most fat, carbohydrates etc and its only very recent in human history we have had an abundance of food (in privelaged countries) and we cannot switch the gene off that tells us to seek that food out, with that food being the best chance of survival in the past our body came up with a clever conception (also used to test food for toxicity etc) which is taste, by making it seem to taste 'nice' and by releasing a higher level of dopamines in the brain we will actively seek it out more to satisfy this 'addiction' we have.
to find things pleasant is not to love them and human concept of love is extremely complex but the source of 'love' is not.
also going back to the parent issue.....try some simple maths, work out how many ancestors you should have going back only 500 years. incest has been extremely common throughout history, it is only recent that it was deemed wrong (thank f**k) and it does still happen all over the world. ancestors should rightly be called incestors:blink:
it would be easy enough to agree that love is not something that is
tangible. on that note, everyone is going to vary a little on how
they respond to a question like the OP posed. and a week from now,
every one of us may or may not say something different. it depends on
how strongly one believes what they perceive to be love is ingrained.
everything and everone is in a state of flux. anyway...
I don't think it can be described in absolute terms. not really. and I
wouldn't discount anyones comments about the chemical factor. still,
what came first, the chemical or the love?
just as depression for example. ones brain chemistry is F'ed up. did
that happen FIRST or as a result of the depression?
in terms of survival of the species, that is bilogicol of course. that does not
preclude the premise or possibility of an intangible...sorry, department of the
redundancy department, feeling or emotion called love. biology and love are
not mutually exclusive.