|
| Thread: Love, Sex and Evolved Monkeys |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted May 07, 2009 01:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The point is that your distinction makes no sense to me.
This whole thread makes no sense with THAT point.
Heck almost NOTHING except talks about atoms (or fields/forces, whatever) make any sense with THAT point.
So drop it 
Quote:
If you love x and are willing to sacrifice for her/him, then (whether rationally or irrationally) you expect the sacrifice to bring you more pleasure than abstaining from sacrifice.
Whoa mvass, did you even read what I said?
Let's make this layman, though I warn you it will sound silly.
Love = pleasure. Is the assumption I'm trying to prove wrong.
So, if you ALREADY LOVE SOMEONE because you're willing to have the sacrifice, YOU ALREADY HAVE THE PLEASURE (or so is the assumption), because YOU ALREADY HAVE LOVE, which by that assumption, IS PLEASURE.
You don't await a different pleasure because you do it purely out of LOVE ITSELF, which YOU ALREADY HAVE. You don't do it for "future pleasure", because you don't say "I'm going to sacrifice for X." "Why?" "Cause, I'm going to have pleasure after that"... you say that you LOVE HIM/HER, which means you ALREADY have that pleasure.
not sure how more layman I can make it, sorry.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This whole thread makes no sense with THAT point.
My point is, I don't understand where your distinction is coming from. Why do you say that "happiness" is inside and "pleasure" is outside?
Quote:
You don't await a different pleasure because you do it purely out of LOVE ITSELF, which YOU ALREADY HAVE. You don't do it for "future pleasure", because you don't say "I'm going to sacrifice for X." "Why?" "Cause, I'm going to have pleasure after that"... you say that you LOVE HIM/HER, which means you ALREADY have that pleasure.
Here you're confusing two definitions of love - "love the feeling" and "love the process/relationship". "Love the feeling" is pleasure. "Love the relationship" is a means for pleasure through "sacrifice".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 01:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My point is, I don't understand where your distinction is coming from. Why do you say that "happiness" is inside and "pleasure" is outside?
I don't like to quote my rather medium posts. Read previous page, 13th post. I answered exactly that.
Quote:
Here you're confusing two definitions of love - "love the feeling" and "love the process/relationship".
There's no such thing as two different types of love. It's either love or it isn't. If you ask me "alternative definitions" are used just for people who don't fall in the definition of loving one another but still want to call it 'love'. Doesn't make it love, it only confuses others who truly ARE in love.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 01:29 AM |
|
|
Ok I figured out how to explain it easier.
It's like ROM vs write-able in computer analogy. But with biological analogies, here's something better:
Clones can have COMPLETE DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES, while having the same genetics and traits, and thus same "pleasures" (as far as substances that are causing it are concerned, of course if one adapted to the pleasure he'll feel less from subsequent ones, just like addictions, wanting more), but different means of happiness. One can be depressed because he thinks the world is ****, another can listen to music for children and look at cartoons at the age of 30, another loves killing people and finds that happiness.
You don't exactly feel "pain" when you see someone slaughtering someone you love. It's just an expression. You feel sadness/depression/whatever, but not "physical pain".
Again, pleasure is to happiness what pain is to depression.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 01:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There's no such thing as two different types of love.
I'm not talking about two different types of love. I'm talking about two different definitions of love. Think of the word "fork". One definition is the eating utensil. The other is a split in the road. Both are forks. Different definitions. Same with "love".
As for your analogies, I see what they are, but I don't understand what that has to do with your distinction between "mental product" and "non-mental product". Why is pleasure a mental product, but happiness not?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 01:43 AM |
|
|
@Death
Quote:
Again, pleasure is to happiness what pain is to depression.
So, if you want to abolish pleasure, then you also want to abolish happiness? Dude, you have a pretty screwed up view of Utopia.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 01:46 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:49, 07 May 2009.
|
Love must have one definition. Like I said, the only reason there are more definitions is because some people WANT to have their situation "in love" but do not meet the standards of, let's say, a TRULY loving couple.
Suppose there's an alien who doesn't know anything about love and you have to teach him.
Suppose there are two families. One in which guy A would eagerly forget about his wife if she wouldn't give him pleasures (let's say sex for the purposes of this topic), another one guy B which would love his wife NO MATTER where he would be.
So Alien asks: "which one is love?"
You say both.
He says "But they are totally different."
Well there's two different types of love.
which is, simply put, BS. Any discussion revolving around it will just be completely ambiguous and pointless.
"Hey, John loves Jane!" -- yeah thanks for the help Captain Obvious but what does that mean? I know what love is, but since it has like a trillion definitions, what precisely does that mean? Will he love her if he will never see her again, or at least he so THINKS? He should, if it's supposed to be LOVE and not just a stupid buzzword.
Psychology tests you know can be used for these sorts of things.
Quote:
Why is pleasure a mental product, but happiness not?
The same reason pain is not mental product but depression is.
To put it in computer analogy, because pleasure is ROM while the brain and happiness is write-able (and thus self-aware).
Let me put this in another perspective. What you see today are mostly pre-programmed programs, which mean ROMs (of course they store DATA and write DATA, but not self-program aka write CODE, which would make one self-aware). So unless you mean that current computers have MINDS like humans and that there's no difference between today's computers and a thinking human, then ask the next question
Quote:
So, if you want to abolish pleasure, then you also want to abolish happiness? Dude, you have a pretty screwed up view of Utopia.
Actually that would imply I would want to end pain, and that is correct. Or at least pain in an end to itself (aka torture). Of course pain can be useful for certain warnings, but I think it could be made more efficient also.
My meaning was that, since pain and depression are two totally different things (and I'm sure no one doubts that depression is mental, right?), then so are pleasure and happiness two totally different things. The "relationship" between them is similar though, meaning kinda non-existant
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 01:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
One in which guy A would eagerly forget about his wife if she wouldn't give him pleasures (let's say sex for the purposes of this topic), another one guy B which would love his wife NO MATTER where he would be.
This shows that you don't understand what I meant. The state of loving is in itself pleasure - but "sacrificing" (though I'm really coming to dislike that term, as it's inaccurate in this context) for someone you love is pleasure as well. In the end, I suppose you could say that "sacrificing" for someone you love is not love, but a result of it. Nevertheless, it is pleasurable, just like the state of love is. (To use an analogy, it's like the difference between "having a lot of money invested" and "return from investments".)
Quote:
To put it in computer analogy, because pleasure is ROM while the brain and happiness is write-able (and thus self-aware).
How is happiness self-aware?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 02:48 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 02:50, 07 May 2009.
|
Quote:
In the end, I suppose you could say that "sacrificing" for someone you love is not love, but a result of it.
Yes.
I still don't get how it means it's pleasure. You're saying that sacrifice is pleasure, but that's what I'm arguing about: how pleasurable is a sacrifice? And be honest about it. Just how much does it feel like pleasure, you know, sex or drugs or anything like that? Seriously.
Quote:
How is happiness self-aware?
Nono, what I meant is that, you being self-aware makes you able to achieve happiness. However my point was to mark the difference between pleasure and happiness by using that analogy. Pleasure is hardwired in genetics, that's why it's different. That's what you asked, and I said that these two (pleasure and happiness) are on two different "chips" of memory to use that analogy.
It doesn't mean that happiness itself is self-aware (cause the "chip" is obviously), but it is part of a DIFFERENT type of chip. One is ROM, the other is write-able. Because happiness REQUIRES a write-able chip, otherwise it can't work (as a note: "saving" a game also requires write-able medium obviously, but not self-aware since it only writes data). See?
If one requires a ROM, but happiness requires a different type of chip (better, may I add, since it is write-able), then can't you see that they're different?
I know it doesn't sound that professional, but I'm using layman terms here.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You're saying that sacrifice is pleasure, but that's what I'm arguing about: how pleasurable is a sacrifice?
No. I would never say that. Sacrifice is not pleasure. That's why I was so hesitant to use that term - because sacrifice is unpleasant. What I meant was that in love, what may usually be unpleasurable is pleasurable - so what would normally be viewed as sacrifice (giving something up and not getting enough in return) would actually not be sacrifice.
Quote:
If one requires a ROM, but happiness requires a different type of chip (better, may I add, since it is write-able), then can't you see that they're different?
Why is happiness like writable memory?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 07:46 AM |
|
|
First thing is, you simply have to stop and interpret things into Death's words and simply take it at face value.
1) PLEASURE is the opposite of PAIN and what he means with that is actually physical. What he means is, the physical pleasure that comes with sex and is relayed via nerves into the brain and the pleasure centre - which is why he always comes up with direct stimulation of it that would do the better job of creating pleasure.
2) As opposed to this LOVE is a mental thing - in his definition - something NOT physical, but rather mental. More a state of mind than anything else. Something that doesn't need the physical.
The trouble with this is that we are again at the mind-with-crap-around definition of humans.
Death, a human is a human, and there are many different kinds of love: I love my wife in a different way than my daughter and my mum in a different way than both of them. However, as a human I'm a combination of the physical and the mental, and things work best, if both are unified. Only my wife loves me as a complete human - and vice versa - the others love only certain aspects of me, since they don't know me the way my wife does.
You know, Death, SHARING pleasure can be a pretty interesting, gratifying and happy experience that I can only recommend.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 11:12 PM |
|
|
@mvass: ok we're going in circles so I'll stop here. What I meant is that happiness REQUIRES writeable medium, it's not "like writeable memory", it DEPENDS on it. Because the MIND (aka conscious brain and some parts of subconscious) is write-able, as you probably are well aware (unlike genetics or your DNA or whatever  ), it means that the only PLACE where happiness can 'exist' is in a writeable storage medium. Since your MIND is the only such place, isn't it ABSOLUTELY LOGICAL to see that happiness is in your mind?
Quote:
First thing is, you simply have to stop and interpret things into Death's words and simply take it at face value.
Yes. Thank you for explaining it straight, I probably wasn't able.
Thing is, mvass, as JJ said here (at least he understands what I'm saying without going in circles), the "other" definition of pleasure (not mine) is ambiguous. What I'm doing here is simplify and split them up at a logical point where we can clearly make the difference (see below).
Quote:
The trouble with this is that we are again at the mind-with-crap-around definition of humans.
This is actually very important in 'technical' psychology or computer AI analysis (mind you, big bucks are spent on such research). I happen to know most of these first-hand, so that's why I usually use these analogies -- it's only natural I would use my first-hand experiences first than from what I've read, i.e second-hand experiences.
I'm sorry if it makes the discussion bland and going in circles but wouldn't you do the same (in a different subject)? I mean use your first-hand experience before whatever else?
Separating the "Mind" aka what is really hard currently to simulate in AIs from the 'physical body'.
Of course "physical" doesn't mean "material", as you are probably aware, computers are kinda materialistic, not spiritual or anything like that. (I don't claim there's nothing spiritual involved, but for the purposes of THIS topic, I'm IGNORING that possibility; that is reserved for a different thread).
Quote:
Death, a human is a human, and there are many different kinds of love: I love my wife in a different way than my daughter and my mum in a different way than both of them. However, as a human I'm a combination of the physical and the mental, and things work best, if both are unified. Only my wife loves me as a complete human - and vice versa - the others love only certain aspects of me, since they don't know me the way my wife does.
You know, Death, SHARING pleasure can be a pretty interesting, gratifying and happy experience that I can only recommend.
I can perfectly understand what you mean JJ. I never said otherwise.
This is what I'm saying. You say that you love them "differently", but in my opinion, there should be only one universal kind of 'love' or else the term gets confusing especially for non-humans (let's say aliens for the sake of it).
I don't doubt that you 'feel' differently towards them, but why do ALL of them have to be ONLY LOVE?
Why not, let's say, love + lust in your wife's case, or love + parentship for your daughter, etc???
Why not SPLIT these emotions so we can find a common "love" and the actual thing that is there? I know it's impossible to do this precisely, but we CAN do it to a certain margin of error. Hope that's clear.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 08:14 AM |
|
|
Because I happen to disagree. 
I said it somehwhere else, I see only two options:
1) Love is a mix of more basic things, a COMPOUND, not an element. In this case there are simply different compounds that are named incorrectly all the same and should actually differ.
2) Love is "learned" by mirroring what you get from mum, mostly, which is the instinctually anchored motherly love: get "love", give "love". In this case love would be social construct like a class attitude or a male feeling of superiority or even racial hate, only a positive thing.
As opposed to this, I can't see more than a speculation in your definition, and you choose this definition precisely, because it fits into how you want to perceive things. It doesn't explain anything though, and I don't find the purpose in it to try and really get behind the phenomenon. The only purpose I see is for your definition is to be a vehicle for your ideas.
In short, I don't think your definition fits in with reality.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 08, 2009 11:06 PM |
|
|
Well of course I "pick" the definition because definitions are picked by humans (as is language, invented) to represent certain things. I'm not claiming I know exactly where the boundary between love and something else is, so my definition is restrictive because it excludes a large 'ambiguous' portion, but at least it's exact on the small parts that it represents.
For example, if one has two circles with radius 6, and they intersect from radius 3 onward, my definition would be like covering only the 3 and below radius of the two components (love & something else), so the rest of it is lost (hence why it is restrictive), but at least the part that it does represent, is not ambiguous.
Not sure if it makes sense. Yeah me and my math thinking, sorry
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 09:16 AM |
|
|
Your definition is based on ASSUMPTIONS that are most likely wrong and at best unproven and doubtful.
You cannot base a definition on vague assumptions:
I define "subconscious" as: what demons are whispering into my head. You see the problem?
And that's what you are doing.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted May 09, 2009 10:30 AM |
|
|
DO you think a Neanderthal & a Cro Magnum ever did it before ?
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
| |
|
|
