Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Sex and drugs
Thread: Sex and drugs This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted February 05, 2009 11:58 PM

*grumbles*

i promised myself i wouldn't be dragged back into this

TheDeath: your semi-fundamentalist "nature" strawman falls apart by one simple detail... the fact there are lots and lots of animals that are either gay, bi or omnisexual... so, even in nature sex is not always about reproduction
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 06, 2009 02:16 AM

Quote:
i promised myself i wouldn't be dragged back into this

TheDeath: your semi-fundamentalist "nature" strawman falls apart by one simple detail... the fact there are lots and lots of animals that are either gay, bi or omnisexual... so, even in nature sex is not always about reproduction
Who said animals are "special" or that they do not do stupid things?

I saw a video with a monkey once which peeing in its own mouth by itself... does that mean it's a good thing to do, or that peeing is nature's way to eat it? That's the role of it? Are you telling me that, as a biologist/analyzer of the situation, that's the purpose of peeing, to drink it back? (I'm pretty sure if you want I can find it )

It is so remarkable that almost every body function has precise usage, it's like a programmer made it precisely (in this case it's nature). (I say "most" because the rest we don't understand yet). As beings who can understand that we should be proud that we know their goals and can avoid the "wrong usage"

Being gay doesn't mean just "gay sex", just like being straight doesn't mean "straight sex".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted February 06, 2009 02:35 AM

Quote:
Now, of course there's nothing wrong with sex, so long as it's done in marriage.

lol

And as long as it's purely for procreation of course!
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2009 08:24 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Nature could have used a more forceful override forceful switch: PAIN. And, no, by logic can you conclude that nature designed pleasure exclusively for reproduction. A LOT more probably is that pleasure was picked instead of pain to bind mom and dad to take care of each other and their offspring. Because otherwise, simple and clear, males would just fight for the right to have sex as animals do.
Why? They have no reason to fight, if there's no pleasure in that action, no satisfaction, etc...

and what do you mean with pain? Pain is used to REPEL things, but it is very related to pleasure. Something tastes bad? Then don't eat it -- at least nature thinks so (it's wrong sometimes). Something hurts? That's bad. (although, this is ONE example of irrationality: when you are under surgery, for example).

Pleasure is to make you think "I want that", i.e desire. Not sure what's so hard. Domination is only used as long as you have a desire to do so -- without pleasure, you can bet animals wouldn't fight at all (and neither reproduce though, a bad point, since they're not rational).

You seem to be a bid taken by your bad literature, you should just have a look at reality.
1) Pain. Hunger. Nature could have made sex without pleasure, like with hunger; a painful craving getting stronger and even stronger. Would have been impractical, though, for a couple of reasons that don't matter.
2) Sex is not just for reproduction with humans. To say so is just WRONG, and if you even ONCE repeat this silly claim I want you to answer point for point what I give you now.
a) Do you see any limitation of sexual desire in women who are either pregnant or not even able anymore to bear children? Answer: NO. Pregnant or not, not able to bear anymore, doesn't matter. Nature delivers. And that's the rule. Explanation? Nature has forgotten to stop the pleasure supply? (men have no limitation anyway; this is important for b)
b) Now look into other species; different ways are possible. For practical reasons males are not restricted in their ability to have sex; females are, though. Now look how things work when sex is INDEED ONLY for reproduction. Take any kind of cats, lions even life in packs. Females are horny ONLY in certain periods. Consequences are: 1) fights for rank between males for the right to spread their genes first. Human males would - if it was the same way for them - fight obviously for the right to have pleasure as well; 2) No binding between male and female; female is bringing up cubs ALONE!

Logical conclusion: With sex being the same pleasurable experience whether you are pregnant or not, whether you cannot even have children anymore or not, it's OBVIOUS that nature did NOT intend sex for reproduction only, so it's a basic and fundamental mistake to claim that.

The same thing is true for your claim of mind control. IT IS NO MIND CONTROL, for heaven's sake, because the body is not separated from the mind or vice versa. There should be unity not separation, and the mind should stop being so stupid and think of itself as being something better than the body. The mind cannot exist separately, and what you THINK is your usual mood is based on body chemistry anyway. For example, if your hormone mixture isn't right, it will have grave effect on your moods, on your mental disposition. You'll feel MENTALLY uneasy. MIND is "controlled" anyway.

Quote:

Quote:
And, incidentally, you seem to think that nature is rather ingenious on one hand, designing this wonderful human brain with the capabilities to override every safety catch nature put in in case that gadget doesn't work as good yet, but is on the other hand to stupid to check what that means for pleasure and sex.
Well yes, a conscious brain practically is against nature's ideals, in a certain way. For example, animals can't really destroy an ecosystem & balance by themselves (they'll always starve if they overpopulate). Humans can blast a few nukes very easily though. It is obvious that we are "above nature" in some cases, because we can shape it and break its "balance" (not that it's always a bad thing, I'm NOT going into THAT subject here).

So the bottom line that you are thinking nature is foolish? That on one hand it has the capability to conceive a species with a real "AI", so to speak, instead of a couple shoddy routines, with the obvious purpose of being more "adaptable" because of that - and therefore have more survivability - but unable to see that maximum adaptability obviously means maximum adaptability to counter any safety catches or inhibiting mechanisms made by nature itself?
I think that this is assuming a lot for which I don't see any real reason. We have discussed that already. That humans are not following what may seem to be "nature's plan", IS nature's plan because it's natural. A child doesn't necessarily do what their parents may want them to, BUT PARENTS KNOW THAT. We HAVE to go our own way, because nature gave us everything necessary to do so.  

I don't want to discuss drugs here, because it's against the thread intent as I see it. Suffice it to say that there are many drugs with different workings and different or no ways of habit-forming, and a lot of drugs work by SUPPRESSING something (and not stimulating something which is quite a difference).
Quote:

If it has more purposes then, why do you have to STOP NATURE with, e.g: a condom? Ever thought about that? Why have "accidents" in the first place? If it was so nature's way, then you wouldn't mind accidents -- after all, they would all be natural.

Can't follow you here. If sex has more purposes - and it obviously HAS - then it follows AUTOMATICALLY that you have sex for different puposes than reproduction? Why would reproduction, then, be an automatic consequence of having sex? Not to mention the fact that nature didn't intend it that way. Let's set the female cycle for simplicity's sake to 28 days. Out of those 28 days only ONE is eligible for conception, with sperms being able to survive 4, at most 5 days. If we assume 5 days, we've only 6 days out of the cycle, in any case less than 25% a conception is even possible. So even WITHOUT any protection a pregnancy is far from guaranteed.

But more important is, as I've said already, planning. If you already HAVE children and you have reached the limit of what you can bring up without starving there is still the different purpose of sex beside reproduction, but now you don't WANT to reproduce anymore because of " local overpopulation". So you MUST prohibit conception.
Note that this is rather basic adaption management - exactly what nature made us capable of.
Quote:

Again, every pleasure has a goal behind it.

Again, wrong. We have just established that there is more than one goal or purpose.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
vahleeb
vahleeb


Hired Hero
posted February 06, 2009 08:25 AM
Edited by vahleeb at 08:31, 06 Feb 2009.

Quote:
Those aren't periods between sex on the graph. It's assumed sex is constant. The peak of the graph = climax. Easy as pie.



I think there are too many people discussing about sex and drugs here without enough experience of either. Also our view on sex is prejudiced by the fact that we're men talking about it.

First up: I would like to see a show of hands of the guys here that experienced multiple orgasms. Your sex is constant assumption plus two climaxes.

Second up: if we are to be talking about multiple orgasms, for women it's quite different from your graph. From experience I can tell you that the first one is rather small, the second one bigger, the third one bigger, the fourth one kinda the same and the fifth one though slightly smaller than the fourth it generally is the limit where they pass out. Sure she can have more, but it's like having sex with a comatose person. So the graphic that started this thread is not only too simplistic, but inaccurate as well.

Also as far as sex and chemicals are concerned: accelerated chemical releases happen in the brain only at the point of climax. And this lasts about as much as "the afterglow" which if you're lucky is a full 15 minutes, but regularly more like 2-5 mins. If drugs had such a short lifespan nobody would use them. That's why I said it's impossible to compare sex to drugs. If TheDeath insists on this point, you can also compare a powder for flu medicine with cocaine. They're both white and fluffy, and if you snort either it'll give you a buzz. But the bottom line is that they just don't work in a comparable manner.

@TheDeath:
Your logic is flawed. Pleasure is not nature's way of controlling behavior. Short argument: proven fact is that every warm blooded animal likes to eat sweets (including dogs). This would motivate the dogs to look for sweets. However you don't see packs of wild dogs fighting over sugar cane plantations. Nor would you ever see such dogs grazing in a field of sugar canes. Also nature didn't fashion/create every detail like a "smart programmer". Maybe you're trying to subliminally induce another point into the conversation like we are all too well suited to what we do not to be designed this way but do not attribute that to nature. Personally I think attributing it to any God (including nature) is the wrong way to go about it.

@JJ
Actually cats is a bad example. If you study feline anatomy you will see what I mean. Sex for the cat female is not pleasurable. The male "tool" has these thorn-like excrescences that during copulation are used to fix itself within the female. Frankly that's why sex for cats is so short. It's too painful to last for too long and the female rejects the male when she reaches her pain threshold. On the other hand I completely agree with the point you're trying to make, I'm just pointing out that you used an unfortunate example.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2009 08:32 AM

Nice to see another more mature dweller here.

Hi again.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted February 06, 2009 09:36 AM

Who cares what the graph says? It was just supposed to be a rough demonstration of a point, do we really need to argue the specifics of it?

Jesus Christ, this thread has turned into an "I've had more sex than you!" competition.
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2009 10:01 AM

It has? Who are the competitors?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
vahleeb
vahleeb


Hired Hero
posted February 06, 2009 10:12 AM

Not my point Titanium, and I do have to agree with you that the thread derailed.

In my original post I was actually with Doom on most of the stuff he said. I only turned against his reasoning when he gave that constant sex line.

My point was to TheDeath that no actual comparison can be made between sex and drugs just because some minuscule thing seems to tie them together.

Perhaps I was too graphic or came off as trying to flaunt my stuff. Really not my intention. Just that I think theory crafting is wrong in all threads, not just when talking about Heroes 5 (think tactics threads and noobs - which at H5 I admit I am one).

I do appreciate the heads up, thank you.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 06, 2009 11:33 AM
Edited by Doomforge at 11:34, 06 Feb 2009.

the graph, as I mentioned, is just a simplified response to mvass. It's nothing important.

Yes, it's about males, only. How the heck I'm supposed to know how female orgasm works? Lol. For males, it's like the mystery of universe. Claiming that you, a male, know it - would be rather, well, foolish You may know the theory, of course, but I meant what we REALLY feel. So far, no woman managed to describe it to me in a way that would make me confident about that knowledge.

Death, if pleasure is wrong, why do you divide it on physical and psychical part? Isn't that a little convenient, so you can have your share of pleasure playing games, reading books, listening to music or whatever while bashing the "animalistic" part? Be true to your opinions. Have absolutely NO pleasure. Be tough!

Since it's all connected to serotonin anyway, making categories for pleasure is rather pointless.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
vahleeb
vahleeb


Hired Hero
posted February 06, 2009 11:44 AM
Edited by vahleeb at 11:46, 06 Feb 2009.

I didn't claim that I knew the specifics. I was just arguing about the trend. And you don't really have to understand what goes one inside a woman's body to trust her when she tells you:
1<2<3
3~4
4>5.

Other than that, I'm with you.

Point taken on the graph. Will not mention it anymore.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted February 06, 2009 03:12 PM

Quote:
My point was to TheDeath that no actual comparison can be made between sex and drugs just because some minuscule thing seems to tie them together.

Then I wholeheartedly agree with you
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
DeadMan
DeadMan


Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
posted February 06, 2009 03:48 PM

mvassilev:
I'm not a dictator - the proletariat will be the dictator. And they will probably ban the things that are hurting them.

TitaniumAlloy:
No, not necessarily for procreation. But in marriage.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Darkshadow
Darkshadow


Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
posted February 06, 2009 03:50 PM

Quote:
But in marriage.


So you think only time when people can have sex is when they are in marriage?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DeadMan
DeadMan


Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
posted February 06, 2009 03:54 PM

Physically, of course they can have sex without marriage. But they should only have sex in marriage.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2009 04:20 PM

Why's that?

I mean, you can have sex only if you are married, but marriage is a serious thing and you can't simply undo it, if things don't work out - at least if it's a religiously motivated marriage.

Now the problem is, that you have to marry FIRST, and then you can check about compatibility which seems foolish.

Imagine you wanted to buy a car, but you'd have to buy it first AND sign a contract to keep it no matter what before you could actually do more than have a look.
Doesn't make much sense.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 06, 2009 04:48 PM
Edited by Doomforge at 16:50, 06 Feb 2009.

JJ, I agree totally.

Deadman, How about a scenario like that:

Person A, a man with big needs, desires all kinds of different sex.
Person B, a woman, prudish, low libido, only accepts missionary position. Most of sex-related innovations disgust her.

They meet, fall in love (3+ years, I mean ), and then marry.

They have sex, the woman is happy, the man is not.

He wants something more, yet she doesn't want to since it disgusts her.

The frustrations grow in the man, he distances himself from his wife, gets involved in a extramarital romance, cheats on his wife, visits brothels.

The woman can't understand it, feels used and depressed, yet doesn't want to change anything about their sex life.


Their marriage fails.

ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE IN THEIR DESIRES.


If they started earlier, and dropped the taboos, they would discover quickly that they are incompatible and save themselves from a fail marriage, and everything connected to it  (frustration, depression, cheating, etc.)
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 06, 2009 05:04 PM

Quote:
a) Do you see any limitation of sexual desire in women who are either pregnant or not even able anymore to bear children? Answer: NO. Pregnant or not, not able to bear anymore, doesn't matter. Nature delivers. And that's the rule. Explanation? Nature has forgotten to stop the pleasure supply? (men have no limitation anyway; this is important for b)
b) Now look into other species; different ways are possible. For practical reasons males are not restricted in their ability to have sex; females are, though. Now look how things work when sex is INDEED ONLY for reproduction. Take any kind of cats, lions even life in packs. Females are horny ONLY in certain periods. Consequences are: 1) fights for rank between males for the right to spread their genes first. Human males would - if it was the same way for them - fight obviously for the right to have pleasure as well; 2) No binding between male and female; female is bringing up cubs ALONE!

Logical conclusion: With sex being the same pleasurable experience whether you are pregnant or not, whether you cannot even have children anymore or not, it's OBVIOUS that nature did NOT intend sex for reproduction only, so it's a basic and fundamental mistake to claim that.
Ok, so then... A logical question would be: Nature didn't give us condoms or any form of birth control. So why do we need to "stop" what nature gave us if you think it's so natural? (there are no 'external' factors like the environment etc...)

I'm not sure about the sex effect on pregnant women though, I seem to have read somewhere something about it but that was a long time ago.

That's like using a computer monitor for the eyes --> obviously, nature did NOT design our eyes to be for looking at a computer monitor.

Quote:
The same thing is true for your claim of mind control. IT IS NO MIND CONTROL, for heaven's sake, because the body is not separated from the mind or vice versa. There should be unity not separation, and the mind should stop being so stupid and think of itself as being something better than the body. The mind cannot exist separately, and what you THINK is your usual mood is based on body chemistry anyway. For example, if your hormone mixture isn't right, it will have grave effect on your moods, on your mental disposition. You'll feel MENTALLY uneasy. MIND is "controlled" anyway.
Ah, not really.
Obvious example of mind control where the "mind" is indeed better than the body: surgery. You feel pain, WHY DO YOU NEED anaestesia? Because you have to keep your body under control?

In this case, the mind is SUPERIOR because it KNOWS that surgery will do good, even though the body is dumb and attempts to mind-control it by giving it "hey, don't do it! I make you feel pain!".


By the way, saying that hormones make you mentally unstable isn't honest -- I dare you to speak to the asexuals at the page I linked (if you want I'll post again), they have a forum (no, this is NOT the anti-sex site, it's simply a site where asexuals can gather and talk their stories etc... just like there are gay communities etc).

Rejecting these people as "not normal" or "emotionless" is like saying gays are abberations of nature. They are not mentally unstable, in any way of the word, and are more than perfectly capable of feeling 'love' (personal opinion: even BETTER than us, because they do not ONCE think about sex for that).

No matter what we speculate nothing is going to convince me that they are unstable or that lack of sexual drive (+ hormones or whatever other substances) makes you "different" (except sex obviously)

(btw: scientists indeed analyzed people like that to conclude I can provide sources if you want but they are REALLY long)


Quote:
So the bottom line that you are thinking nature is foolish? That on one hand it has the capability to conceive a species with a real "AI", so to speak, instead of a couple shoddy routines, with the obvious purpose of being more "adaptable" because of that - and therefore have more survivability - but unable to see that maximum adaptability obviously means maximum adaptability to counter any safety catches or inhibiting mechanisms made by nature itself?
That has multiple answers depending on the situation.

Nature is not foolish, but it is DUMB. It only sees survivability as the factor of "better". Also, Nature is BLIND. It doesn't matter if a very strong and powerful species got wiped by a meteor -- it WILL think that species was weak.

It is also extremely slow. Human reason is a lot faster (as you can see from our artificial environments).

And we are not following nature's plan -- after all, we can destroy the entire planet and ourselves. That isn't really nature's goal, is it?

Quote:
I don't want to discuss drugs here, because it's against the thread intent as I see it. Suffice it to say that there are many drugs with different workings and different or no ways of habit-forming, and a lot of drugs work by SUPPRESSING something (and not stimulating something which is quite a difference).
Yes but think about it: if it suppresses something, what will you FEEL?
pleasure. peace. calmness. whatever.

that's the FEELING you get for being suppressed.

Quote:
Can't follow you here. If sex has more purposes - and it obviously HAS - then it follows AUTOMATICALLY that you have sex for different puposes than reproduction? Why would reproduction, then, be an automatic consequence of having sex? Not to mention the fact that nature didn't intend it that way. Let's set the female cycle for simplicity's sake to 28 days. Out of those 28 days only ONE is eligible for conception, with sperms being able to survive 4, at most 5 days. If we assume 5 days, we've only 6 days out of the cycle, in any case less than 25% a conception is even possible. So even WITHOUT any protection a pregnancy is far from guaranteed.
It doesn't matter whether it is a "chance" of achieving it correctly or not, as long as you do it for reproduction -- even if it fails, it isn't because you did it for something else. The "intent" matters, when I say that you have a purpose.

Quote:
But more important is, as I've said already, planning. If you already HAVE children and you have reached the limit of what you can bring up without starving there is still the different purpose of sex beside reproduction, but now you don't WANT to reproduce anymore because of " local overpopulation". So you MUST prohibit conception.
Note that this is rather basic adaption management - exactly what nature made us capable of.
Yes well, in that case, the most OPTIMAL (rationally speaking) solution would be: no sex.

What's the most optimal way of NOT calculating a given algorithm with the computer? Turning it off, or making it calculate and then deleting the entire computation?

Quote:
Your logic is flawed. Pleasure is not nature's way of controlling behavior. Short argument: proven fact is that every warm blooded animal likes to eat sweets (including dogs). This would motivate the dogs to look for sweets. However you don't see packs of wild dogs fighting over sugar cane plantations. Nor would you ever see such dogs grazing in a field of sugar canes.
Because they are different types of pleasure obviously -- I didn't say that all of them are the same.

Plus, I don't get it why people think that animals can't misuse what nature designed something for -- after all, we are animals, evolutionary speaking. (I gave an example with a monkey drinking it's own pee ; it is OBVIOUS that nature did NOT design that for drinking it back, isn't it?)

I even gave the example with the shark. What did we do? We just added pleasure to him (or smell, which it makes it go because it thinks it's food). That's right. And we called it MIND CONTROL because we did NOT touch his brain at ALL. We only made artificial smell. How is that not OBVIOUS that it is mind control?

Sure, you can avoid the inevitable, saying that sharks are different, but in reality -- it's only because they are very WEAK minded in their conscious and they cannot 'resist' or cannot TWIST the ideas of pleasure. As much as we can resist pleasure, we can also TWIST it, that's why we are "more complicated" but no one ever got anywhere in evolution by studying complexities. You need to look at building blocks first.

Let's suppose we can genetically engineer our species so they don't feel pleasure or pain, just a simple 'signal' from pain to know that they are touched in that place (and might harm themselves) -- aka how ROBOTS detect impacts.

From a rational perspective now, suppose we look at them from our spaceships as an experiment and analyzing their behavior, which is more EFFICIENT at survival and cooperation and living on? The ones which don't waste energy of course (like on sex for NOTHING, except pleasure ofc).

To take it further, look at computers. Suppose they are conscious. What conclusion do you draw from it?

I can only summarize:
Sad will be the day when computers will give us "class" and become more efficient than us at everything...

(and that is because of our stubborness on clinging on this pleasures of ours)

Quote:
Also nature didn't fashion/create every detail like a "smart programmer". Maybe you're trying to subliminally induce another point into the conversation like we are all too well suited to what we do not to be designed this way but do not attribute that to nature. Personally I think attributing it to any God (including nature) is the wrong way to go about it.
Oh trust me I am a programmer and what nature does is called "genetic algorithm" which is usually, self-sustained given a few boosts. Notice: this doesn't make ME the programmer in question, but the COMPUTER itself (which uses that genetic algorithm to simulate what nature does). In this case, nature = the computer, not ME (even though I am the 'programmer' officially), so yes I do not speak of God (cause in this case I was God)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2009 07:02 PM

Quote:
Ok, so then... A logical question would be: Nature didn't give us condoms or any form of birth control.
It did. It gave us the brain.

Quote:

Obvious example of mind control where the "mind" is indeed better than the body: surgery. You feel pain, WHY DO YOU NEED anaestesia? Because you have to keep your body under control?

In this case, the mind is SUPERIOR because it KNOWS that surgery will do good, even though the body is dumb and attempts to mind-control it by giving it "hey, don't do it! I make you feel pain!".

You are dividing yet again. With your logic the legs are rather superior because without them we couldn't move. Stip dividing mind and body and try to see them as a unity. Without a body the mind dies. Without a mind to register pain there is no pain at all. This division is absolutely useless.

Quote:

By the way, saying that hormones make you mentally unstable isn't honest -- I dare you to speak to the asexuals at the page I linked (if you want I'll post again), they have a forum (no, this is NOT the anti-sex site, it's simply a site where asexuals can gather and talk their stories etc... just like there are gay communities etc).
I don't mean asexuals, and frankly I don't care for them. What I mean is the menopause (a phenomenon that you can observe with men as well). Ask any woman (or men, for that matter, even though they still have to adapt to the idea a bit) who's in it how she feels, mentally.




Quote:

Nature is not foolish, but it is DUMB. It only sees survivability as the factor of "better".
Do we really know that for sure? I don't think so. Survivability alone doesn't seem to be able to explain everything. So do we KNOW that for sure?
Quote:

Also, Nature is BLIND. It doesn't matter if a very strong and powerful species got wiped by a meteor -- it WILL think that species was weak.

What's blind about that? It's RIGHT - that species WAS weak, it just couldn't survive the impact.

Quote:

It is also extremely slow. Human reason is a lot faster (as you can see from our artificial environments).
And we are not following nature's plan -- after all, we can destroy the entire planet and ourselves. That isn't really nature's goal, is it?

Sigh. You aren't answering to the point! If nature has somehow concluded that the brain should be more powerful in order to have a higher survivability since it is able to react a lot faster indeed, and especially able to react on the actual environment changes that happen WITHOUT NATURE'S HELP - than nature gives up any plans for humans - manipulating nature (for better survivability) is quite obviously part of the plan. It's concept-inherent.
Quote:

Quote:
I don't want to discuss drugs here, because it's against the thread intent as I see it. Suffice it to say that there are many drugs with different workings and different or no ways of habit-forming, and a lot of drugs work by SUPPRESSING something (and not stimulating something which is quite a difference).
Yes but think about it: if it suppresses something, what will you FEEL?
pleasure. peace. calmness. whatever.
In this case you will feel something NOT The absence of something. A numbing. What you feel then is RELIEF.

Quote:

Quote:
But more important is, as I've said already, planning. If you already HAVE children and you have reached the limit of what you can bring up without starving there is still the different purpose of sex beside reproduction, but now you don't WANT to reproduce anymore because of " local overpopulation". So you MUST prohibit conception.
Note that this is rather basic adaption management - exactly what nature made us capable of.
Yes well, in that case, the most OPTIMAL (rationally speaking) solution would be: no sex.


You forget the other purposes sex fulfills! (DAMMIT!)


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 06, 2009 08:30 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 20:41, 06 Feb 2009.

Quote:
It did. It gave us the brain.
And nukes too? And Nazis too? Probably all those kills and bombings and massacres... it's natural.

Dammit, I knew Hitler was perfectly natural, can't argue with that.
I should have known better that nature has everything man wants as goals! Nature isn't about survival --> ask those who suicide.

How should we approach evolution then?

Quote:
You are dividing yet again. With your logic the legs are rather superior because without them we couldn't move. Stip dividing mind and body and try to see them as a unity. Without a body the mind dies. Without a mind to register pain there is no pain at all. This division is absolutely useless.
Off the top of my head, one exception: you can use transplants of body organs, or artificial limbs (or even artificial organs, maybe later). But, you cannot make a brain transplant, even if it is successful, at least if you want that person to be Mr.X you know. (also btw, real-life cloning (not in movies) may be able to reproduce the limbs & all, but not the brain/personality (stored in the brain anyway))

Like I said... you're using the "we don't know that (yet)!", just avoiding the inevitable.

Quote:
I don't mean asexuals, and frankly I don't care for them. What I mean is the menopause (a phenomenon that you can observe with men as well). Ask any woman (or men, for that matter, even though they still have to adapt to the idea a bit) who's in it how she feels, mentally.
But they aren't abberations, they aren't special, they aren't non-human. They are exactly like us but LACKING those hormones & sex drive & stuff I talked about.

The fact that a person who experienced these substances grows mentally unstable is EVIDENCE even more that sex is AN ADDICTION. For those people who are EXACTLY like us but lack those substances, they are NOT mentally unstable. Why would we be, lacking them? At best we would turn into them. But if we ARE mentally unstable, it means WE ARE ADDICTED.

Better analogy?

Quote:
Do we really know that for sure? I don't think so. Survivability alone doesn't seem to be able to explain everything. So do we KNOW that for sure?
Well we know "kinda" for sure. Here's why. That's the whole basis of genetic algorithms, for one, but let us go into more layman terms:

You will notice however, that nature doesn't "think" with a 'brain' like us -- what it does, is just have species into its system (so to speak). We see that species that survive get to reproduce later on -- a dead specie can't reproduce. So, what is the mechanism that makes nature think something is 'better'? Well obviously, those things that exist within its system -- aka those that survive to reproduce.

Now, unless nature WANTS the species to go to some better place like 'heaven' and thus, probably want them dead, there's absolutely no justification for their deaths -- apart from what it considers "good riddance" since after all, it only suggests those still living in its (closed) system.

But this, by human logic, is sometimes dumb, and it is blind. I gave the asteroid example: even if a species would be able to beat up another one and be more than capable of surviving a lot faster & easier, if it has sheer 'bad luck' or "outside" interference, then it's gonna be dead. And nature says "good riddance" without analyzing it with logic, which makes it dumb.

This applies to the below quote:
Quote:
What's blind about that? It's RIGHT - that species WAS weak, it just couldn't survive the impact.
What do you mean? Let me get it down to a smaller-scale. There's two creatures, one which barely manages to survive, the other one which is 'clearly superior' in terms of survivability. (let's just say that).

BOTH ARE VULNERABLE TO A BULLET. Some human goes and shoots the stronger. He could have shot the other one, but for various reasons, he didn't.

Replace "human" with a 'natural' occurrence. In short, just pure luck. Just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In science, being analyzing and all that, of course, this isn't considered evidence of being superior, it's even scrapped.

Quote:
Sigh. You aren't answering to the point! If nature has somehow concluded that the brain should be more powerful in order to have a higher survivability since it is able to react a lot faster indeed, and especially able to react on the actual environment changes that happen WITHOUT NATURE'S HELP - than nature gives up any plans for humans - manipulating nature (for better survivability) is quite obviously part of the plan. It's concept-inherent.
Self-destruction is as well?

You know what? You draw absolutely no line between what's natural and what's artificial. There is a problem here because it is completely pointless to discuss about it, since EVERYTHING is natural anyway -- why even have the term?. It's like saying "everything is xyz". Is there a point for having that, if everything is it? Language is used for classifications, to be able to mark differences etc... and usually by comparison with something else.

Quote:
In this case you will feel something NOT The absence of something. A numbing. What you feel then is RELIEF.
Achieving sexual climax requires a complex conspiracy of sensory and psychological signals -- and the eventual silencing of critical brain areas.

Neuroscientist Gert Holstege of the University of Gro≠ningen in the Netherlands and his colleagues attempted to solve the male side of the equation by asking the female partners of 11 men to stimulate their partnerís penis until he ejaculated while they scanned his brain using positron-emission tomography (PET). During ejaculation, the researchers saw extraordinary activation of the ventral tegmental area (VTA), a major hub of the brainís reward circuitry; the intensity of this response is comparable to that induced by heroin. "Because ejaculation introduces sperm into the female reproductive tract, it would be critical for reproduction of the species to favor ejaculation as a most rewarding behavior," the researchers wrote in 2003 in The Journal of Neuroscience.


More drug comparisons?


Unless, of course, you claim that with drugs (heroin, in particular), your brain functions perfectly conscious -- but it's a more extreme form of being drunk anyway (and with all hallucinations and all that). That is an example of a shut down critical (conscious) brain.

Quote:
You forget the other purposes sex fulfills! (DAMMIT!)
See above


@Doom:
Quote:
He wants something more, yet she doesn't want to since it disgusts her.

The frustrations grow in the man, he distances himself from his wife, gets involved in a extramarital romance, cheats on his wife, visits brothels.

The woman can't understand it, feels used and depressed, yet doesn't want to change anything about their sex life.
Then he doesn't love her... and after 3 years (isn't that what you said), he's a moron and deserves any accusations he gets from her. Doesn't matter that he "changed" -- by that logic, no matter HOW someone marries (regardless of premarital sex or not), people can still 'change' or use that excuse.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll †† Post New Topic †† Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2407 seconds