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»
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 06, 2009 09:45 PM

a moron you say. Well, ok, cheating is never fair, I meant however that this whole situation would NEVER happen if they have had normal sexlife before marriage. They would discover their needs completely do not match VERY fast, and at least take it into consideration before marrying.

____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2009 10:16 PM
Edited by JollyJoker at 22:18, 06 Feb 2009.

Quote:
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.

The introduction of Hitler in any discussion about whatever issue, be it about electrical eggslicers or Chinese sacks of rice is a sure sign of extreme helplessness. In this case it signifies "no point."
Nature gave us the brain and with it adaptability, I have explained it to you half a dozen times now at least. Nature doesn't need to give us our lunchbox and comb our hair and make sure we got the condoms when we go out. It gave us a brain and it released us.
Quote:

Quote:
Stop dividing mind and body and try to see them as a unity.
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))
So what? Off the top of my head I'd say you can lose part of the brain, no problem, but try to lose part of the heart. What is that supposed to mean. Is your mind separate from the body? I don't think so. It doesn't matter whether you can get a transplant or not, that hasn't got anything to do with the concept of unity of body.
Quote:

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?

No. I think, you are losing it completely. We are talking about the fact that what YOU feel as normal UNCONTROLLED mood is in fact chemically influenced ANYWAY, whether you have sex or not, what you will see when your body chemistry changes. The important thing is the CHANGE and the instabilities because that transfers to instabilities in the mood, simple and easy.
Take this example. Let's say you are either born normal, 2 hands, 10 fingers. Others my be born with 2 hands and 4 fingers each, or one hand only, or one hand with 5 fingers and hand with 3. No matter what, all are normal people. All have no problem with their situation. But now imagine every time you wake up the situation changes. You were born with 2 hands and 10 fingers, and you wake up and suddenly you are a finger missing. Next day it's 2 fingers missing. And the day after that it's everything back to "normal".
And since you REGISTERING the hormonal differences you feel unstable.
Moreover, you'll indeed feel different, and that has nothing to with sex. Men, for example, whose testosterone production is reduced, will feel insecure. Like a wimp, somehow. It has NOTHING to do with sex. It's ximple body chemistry and it influences the mind ANYWAY, whether you know it or not.
Quote:

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?
Answer.
I'll safe the quote, because it's not what I mean. What happens is that species are evolving. If they survive then they survive: they are just there. We have a plethora of species that HAVE survived - on a lot of levels: think about bacteria, for example. However, of course there are more complex organic structures and more different ones. If survivability was the only point, a single cell would have done the trick already. Or simple organisms using call devision for multiplying. Extreme survivability. But that doesn't explain the rising complexity. I mean, you can envision a lot of survival strategies, but it would seem that simple structure with a high durability would promise a lot.
So survivability is just the ultimate hurdle of success - since if a species fails it is down and out, but i Don't know whether that's it. Variety seems to be important as well, at least. Or there is a special purpose we have no clue about.

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.
I fail to see your point: if you are down and out you are down and out - it doesn't matter whether you lose the game because the ball ricochets 3 times and scores luckily. YOU LOSE. Period and file closed. Luck or hapentance is part of it.
Quote:

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?
Of course. If the species doesn't survive because of self-destruction it failed as well - then it was a wrong concept and the question would be what would have to be changed for the next try.
Quote:

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.
Talk is not about natural. Of course I draw a lin between naturaland artificial - the line is given by defintion. What I say is that nature IMPLIED "artificial" (man-made) when it constructed us the way it did. It could have given us a "natural" club: one arm would have been formed like a massive club for clubbing things down. But it gave us a brain and hands, so we can make an ARTIFICIAL club and use it. A tool. Artificial. Implied. What is so difficult?
Quote:

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.
Comes with the trade, doesn't it. The pleasure is no pleasure if you start thinking about the fact that your grandma is very sick, that you are broke and that the heater doesn't work. Makes sense. If it wasn't for that, we'd be extinct because no one had found the peace for it - too much stress.

For the comparison of sex with drugs I thought we alreday had established that humans are a chemistry lab on 2 legs - whether yu notice it or not. It mkes no sense to bash the tailor-made ones you actually register that have no bad sideeffects.
As a matter of fact eaxg drug works differently, and I would have to be very wrong if Heroin would effect the pleasure center.
Moreover you have the wrong definition of addiction. You are not addicted just because you like something.

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 06, 2009 11:01 PM

Quote:
The introduction of Hitler in any discussion about whatever issue, be it about electrical eggslicers or Chinese sacks of rice is a sure sign of extreme helplessness. In this case it signifies "no point."
Hey that was just a minor remark, didn't you notice the smiley?
Quote:
Nature gave us the brain and with it adaptability, I have explained it to you half a dozen times now at least. Nature doesn't need to give us our lunchbox and comb our hair and make sure we got the condoms when we go out. It gave us a brain and it released us.
I didn't ask what i gave us -- that's quite obvious now, isn't it? I asked what the goals/FUNCTIONS/purpose of a specific thing are -- you know, even manufacturers get you a product manual, in case of artificial products...

The idea is the following: we obviously CAN do anything, we CAN blow ourselves up, we can use condoms, etc... but IS THIS NATURE'S GOAL?

if it is, then EVERYTHING is, which means it is completely pointless, which also means nothing is artificial, except arbitrary definition that contradicts the natural definition anyway.

Quote:
So what? Off the top of my head I'd say you can lose part of the brain, no problem, but try to lose part of the heart. What is that supposed to mean. Is your mind separate from the body? I don't think so. It doesn't matter whether you can get a transplant or not, that hasn't got anything to do with the concept of unity of body.
Artificial heart? In the future I mean...
The brain needs the body, but this doesn't mean that the body doesn't try to, let's say, shut it down. Not sure where that's heading, but in the future, we might as well have every organ (except the brain, for obvious reasons) artificial, so they would all be expendable. (transferring the brain memory into artificial data, as much as the hype is on about it, it's a LOT more difficult, maybe even impossible but who knows?). Still, that is only used for backup, not for "thinking" or being "active" (like a brain is).

Quote:
No. I think, you are losing it completely. We are talking about the fact that what YOU feel as normal UNCONTROLLED mood is in fact chemically influenced ANYWAY, whether you have sex or not, what you will see when your body chemistry changes. The important thing is the CHANGE and the instabilities because that transfers to instabilities in the mood, simple and easy.
Take this example. Let's say you are either born normal, 2 hands, 10 fingers. Others my be born with 2 hands and 4 fingers each, or one hand only, or one hand with 5 fingers and hand with 3. No matter what, all are normal people. All have no problem with their situation. But now imagine every time you wake up the situation changes. You were born with 2 hands and 10 fingers, and you wake up and suddenly you are a finger missing. Next day it's 2 fingers missing. And the day after that it's everything back to "normal".
And since you REGISTERING the hormonal differences you feel unstable.
Moreover, you'll indeed feel different, and that has nothing to with sex. Men, for example, whose testosterone production is reduced, will feel insecure. Like a wimp, somehow. It has NOTHING to do with sex. It's ximple body chemistry and it influences the mind ANYWAY, whether you know it or not.
But won't that conclude that asexuals will feel insecure, like a wimp, etc... which they don't?

By the way, asexuals are not like me (I am straight), that is, rationally looking at sex. They DO NOT HAVE the sex drive (or if they have it, it's very insignificant). Therefore it is like YOU WERE DEPRIVED of them. Why would they 'feel' different than you, once you are deprived?

If you feel insecure when you are deprived of them, and they don't (they ARE already), it means you ARE addicted to it. Like drugs. For example, a junkie that needs his dose but doesn't get it feels very, let's say, insecure. A normal person that doesn't get the dose either does NOT feel insecure -- both "don't have" the dose, but why does the former feel insecure?

because he's addicted.

Simply put, suppose there was this pill to deprive you of those substances -- let's suppose you would take it. Will you feel the same?

What that pill does, and let me remind you again, is that you become asexual. Question: why don't asexuals feel insecure?

Quote:
I'll safe the quote, because it's not what I mean. What happens is that species are evolving. If they survive then they survive: they are just there. We have a plethora of species that HAVE survived - on a lot of levels: think about bacteria, for example. However, of course there are more complex organic structures and more different ones. If survivability was the only point, a single cell would have done the trick already. Or simple organisms using call devision for multiplying. Extreme survivability. But that doesn't explain the rising complexity. I mean, you can envision a lot of survival strategies, but it would seem that simple structure with a high durability would promise a lot.
So survivability is just the ultimate hurdle of success - since if a species fails it is down and out, but i Don't know whether that's it. Variety seems to be important as well, at least. Or there is a special purpose we have no clue about.
Bacteria don't survive very well. And obviously, nature had a lot bigger animals before us, so evolution seems to make creatures "smaller" -- maybe because they don't waste as much resources and still survive.

Quote:
I fail to see your point: if you are down and out you are down and out - it doesn't matter whether you lose the game because the ball ricochets 3 times and scores luckily. YOU LOSE. Period and file closed. Luck or hapentance is part of it.
Ok, let me put it again differently, and see why nature is dumb in choosing the "perfect creature" (whatever).

You are a genetic engineer. You make 2 specimens in 2 different labs. For some reason (let's say a storm), one of the specimens dies in a fire. The weaker specimen survives though.

So what do you conclude from this? That the stronger specimen is actually weaker, since it died in a fire? That, due to various reasons, it is actually weaker, since it "attracts" a fire, or "attracts" bad luck, or what?

That's not how engineering works... we are not that blind as nature

Quote:
Of course. If the species doesn't survive because of self-destruction it failed as well - then it was a wrong concept and the question would be what would have to be changed for the next try.
No I meant self-destruction of the entire natural ecosystem, so you don't have any "last chance".

Quote:
Talk is not about natural. Of course I draw a lin between naturaland artificial - the line is given by defintion. What I say is that nature IMPLIED "artificial" (man-made) when it constructed us the way it did. It could have given us a "natural" club: one arm would have been formed like a massive club for clubbing things down. But it gave us a brain and hands, so we can make an ARTIFICIAL club and use it. A tool. Artificial. Implied. What is so difficult?
Eh, I understand what you mean, but actually evolutionary speaking, it goes like this (suppose we evolved directly from apes, for simplicity reasons): (NOTE this is just an example)

We had massive strength (apes). Now, somehow let's say, it got smarter... and sometime, it built a club. It used the club to beat up the prey. Or maybe to attack weak prey. As you very well know, if you don't use your muscles, you 'lose' them (so to speak). Nature figured out: "hey this species seems to get along without muscles, it still survives, let's remove 'em" (of course, not actually thinking, but that's more drama ).

Then it got smarter (usage of brain muscles is similar, but more complicated). Now it turned human (let's ignore the other differences).

Nature didn't design us for a club. WE designed the club. But nature reshaped the species to be THE MOST OPTIMAL in terms of energy usage (extra muscles are useless, for example, if we don't need 'em). Somehow, wasting energy on pleasure alone doesn't quite fit in this 'masterplan'.

Quote:
Comes with the trade, doesn't it. The pleasure is no pleasure if you start thinking about the fact that your grandma is very sick, that you are broke and that the heater doesn't work. Makes sense. If it wasn't for that, we'd be extinct because no one had found the peace for it - too much stress.
Yes but it still silences "critical brain parts" (aka mind control) if you actually enjoy it. After all, what you said above is my point: that, if you don't feel pleasure (i.e think about your sick grandma), then your brain isn't "silenced" (well critical parts anyway), thus you don't feel pleasure...

Quote:
For the comparison of sex with drugs I thought we alreday had established that humans are a chemistry lab on 2 legs - whether yu notice it or not. It mkes no sense to bash the tailor-made ones you actually register that have no bad sideeffects.
As a matter of fact eaxg drug works differently, and I would have to be very wrong if Heroin would effect the pleasure center.
Of course every drug works differently, just like there are so many types/forms of pleasure. Not all of them affect your brain as much (consequently, not all drugs are so 'dangerous', well classifically speaking, from sources).

Quote:
You are not addicted just because you like something.
No, but you ARE addicted to something IF (and that's a big if) you can't "survive without it" or if you feel "insecure" without it or if you feel "bad" without it (like drugs), but someone else doesn't need it to survive/whatever (asexual).
____________
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 07, 2009 12:00 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Nature gave us the brain and with it adaptability, I have explained it to you half a dozen times now at least. Nature doesn't need to give us our lunchbox and comb our hair and make sure we got the condoms when we go out. It gave us a brain and it released us.
I didn't ask what i gave us -- that's quite obvious now, isn't it? I asked what the goals/FUNCTIONS/purpose of a specific thing are -- you know, even manufacturers get you a product manual, in case of artificial products...
I thought the goal is survival. What is the purpose of a building block? To build something. You can't ask, to build WHAT. There are multi-purpoe-things.
Quote:

The idea is the following: we obviously CAN do anything, we CAN blow ourselves up, we can use condoms, etc... but IS THIS NATURE'S GOAL?
if it is, then EVERYTHING is, which means it is completely pointless, which also means nothing is artificial, except arbitrary definition that contradicts the natural definition anyway.
What are ou talking about? Yes, nature's goal is that we can do any- and everything, since that is the uktimate survivability. The paradoxn is that ultimate survivbility means that self-destruction is possible. What's so difficult to understand about that? It's the all-powerful paradox: if god is all-powerful he can kill himself, blablabla.

Quote:

The brain needs the body, but this doesn't mean that the body doesn't try to, let's say, shut it down. Not sure where that's heading,
It's true the other way round as well, mind you. Not that I'd lnow were that's heading...

Quote:
But won't that conclude that asexuals will feel insecure, like a wimp, etc... which they don't?
.
.
. A normal person that doesn't get the dose either does NOT feel insecure -- both "don't have" the dose, but why does the former feel insecure?

I wont quote this again, but if you read the last post you'll see that I explained that the problem is the CHANGE. Not the level. The CHANGE.


Quote:
Bacteria don't survive very well. And obviously, nature had a lot bigger animals before us, so evolution seems to make creatures "smaller" -- maybe because they don't waste as much resources and still survive.
Spiders.

Quote:

Quote:
Of course. If the species doesn't survive because of self-destruction it failed as well - then it was a wrong concept and the question would be what would have to be changed for the next try.
No I meant self-destruction of the entire natural ecosystem, so you don't have any "last chance".
You are forgetting the different perspective. It doesn't matter WHY you are dead when you are dead. Bad luck doesn't count on the graveyard, engineering or not. And especially not in term of billion years.
Quote:

Nature didn't design us for a club. WE designed the club. But nature reshaped the species to be THE MOST OPTIMAL in terms of energy usage (extra muscles are useless, for example, if we don't need 'em). Somehow, wasting energy on pleasure alone doesn't quite fit in this 'masterplan'
Right That should make you think about why pleasure is there. It would seem then that it fits, wouldn't it.

Quote:
Yes but it still silences "critical brain parts" (aka mind control) if you actually enjoy it. After all, what you said above is my point: that, if you don't feel pleasure (i.e think about your sick grandma), then your brain isn't "silenced" (well critical parts anyway), thus you don't feel pleasure...
Works the other way round as well. You can indeed think yourself stronger (the muscles grow when you use them in your mind), and if you imagine something terrible your pulse goes up and the body reacts. So?
Quote:

Quote:
You are not addicted just because you like something.
No, but you ARE addicted to something IF (and that's a big if) you can't "survive without it" or if you feel "insecure" without it or if you feel "bad" without it (like drugs), but someone else doesn't need it to survive/whatever (asexual).
Nothing mentioned here is true for sex.

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 07, 2009 02:07 AM
Edited by TheDeath at 02:10, 07 Feb 2009.

Ok half of this is derailed into an evolutionary subject, so I hope you're not going to complain if I don't reply to that? (... you can understand why)

Quote:
Quote:
The brain needs the body, but this doesn't mean that the body doesn't try to, let's say, shut it down. Not sure where that's heading,
It's true the other way round as well, mind you. Not that I'd lnow were that's heading...
Ah ok, I think I know what you're saying now. But without complicating it with a long description, let's say your body is diseased, genetically (you were born that way), like cancer for example (that's not genetical though)... and that the body periodically hurts your brain (just for kicks)... the brain may need some of the body (oxygen, etc...) but you can bet such person would want (aka the conscious brain would want) to get rid of that useless pain. In this case, the brain is decisive.

Quote:
I wont quote this again, but if you read the last post you'll see that I explained that the problem is the CHANGE. Not the level. The CHANGE.
Oh, but such change isn't actually a problem unless you're addicted, because that's especially true not just in drugs but in any addiction. Let's take smoking: the change is always hard. Even for non-smokers to get into smoking, and vice-versa. It's harder to quit but after you quit, it becomes easier and easier to "not smoke again" (the change has already been done). So it shows very similar traits to an addiction (not just drugs, ANY addiction, since smoking isn't a "drug" per se by definition though, but let's not get into that)

Quote:
You are forgetting the different perspective. It doesn't matter WHY you are dead when you are dead. Bad luck doesn't count on the graveyard, engineering or not. And especially not in term of billion years.


Quote:
Works the other way round as well. You can indeed think yourself stronger (the muscles grow when you use them in your mind), and if you imagine something terrible your pulse goes up and the body reacts. So?
In those cases the brain isn't "deactivated" or "silenced". But that's beside the point anyway.

My point was this: (please forgive wrong grammar or stuff, since I want to make it a short description to make it 'clear' I hope):

In order for you to feel pleasure, your brain must be silenced -- the greater the pleasure, the greater the silencing.

Now in the case at hand: if you think (aka USE your brain) about your sick grandma, you won't feel pleasure -- because it's kinda hard for the body to silence it. Therefore, since it isn't silenced, you don't feel pleasure.

That's the conclusion I draw why pleasure = silenced brain (of course, also activating the "reward" part of the brain, but I am talking about the conscious brain, like I said, please ignore the fact that I didn't type 'conscious brain' everywhere instead of just 'brain' ).

Quote:
Nothing mentioned here is true for sex.
Yes, the change like you said, is the 'thing' that's causing it. And it is similar to any other addiction (not just drugs mind you). See above

I mean, it's pretty even obvious for the word itself. Addiction means, you can't really "live" without that particular thing. If the change/transition for you is hard, it basically means you're addicted -- since after all, there are perfectly fine examples of other people who can live (and healthy as well, not "in agony") without it, why wouldn't you? Unless you're addicted of course (read: I'm talking about ANY addiction here).

You can see that's true for ANY addiction (of course we're interested mainly in chemical addictions here).
____________
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
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted February 07, 2009 03:01 AM

You don't have to be high or having sex to not think about your sick grandma.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

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


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted February 07, 2009 04:06 AM

lol @ this thread and you guys
____________
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 07, 2009 10:44 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
The brain needs the body, but this doesn't mean that the body doesn't try to, let's say, shut it down. Not sure where that's heading,
It's true the other way round as well, mind you. Not that I'd lnow were that's heading...
Ah ok, I think I know what you're saying now. But without complicating it with a long description, let's say your body is diseased, genetically (you were born that way), like cancer for example (that's not genetical though)... and that the body periodically hurts your brain (just for kicks)... the brain may need some of the body (oxygen, etc...) but you can bet such person would want (aka the conscious brain would want) to get rid of that useless pain. In this case, the brain is decisive.
Trouble is, it often works exactly the other way round. Desease starts in the brain. Ever heard of AUTO-Immune-deseases? Cancer is one. Current figures are 10% genetically disposed, 90% auto-immune-disease, which means basically slow suicide, since something is intolerable. There are others as well. In this cases, obviously, the body, if it could, would rather change the brain. Lots of bodily disfunctions are just reflections of mental ones. Most often the BRAIN is the guilty part.


Quote:
I wont quote this again, but if you read the last post you'll see that I explained that the problem is the CHANGE. Not the level. The CHANGE.
Oh, but such change isn't actually a problem unless you're addicted, because that's especially true not just in drugs but in any addiction. Let's take smoking: the change is always hard. Even for non-smokers to get into smoking, and vice-versa. It's harder to quit but after you quit, it becomes easier and easier to "not smoke again" (the change has already been done). So it shows very similar traits to an addiction (not just drugs, ANY addiction, since smoking isn't a "drug" per se by definition though, but let's not get into that)

Here we are at the heart of the problem. Your problem (or those of the websites you prefer to read). It's the definition of addiction. If we follow this, then we are addicted to oxygen and a steady heart rhythm as well. Worse, we would be addicted to SLEEP as well, and isn't sleep the most devious way of all to silence your brain?

With this last one you may not be too hostile to the idea that the brain HAS TO be silenced once in a while for its own good. Some relaxation to be able to dive back into the struggle called life.

Of course, going back to your asexuals, what you never had you won't miss, that's got nothing to do with addiction: a warm shelter, for example. Soft, warm clothing. Are we addicted to them? If we follow you, than yes. Losing that would massively disbalance them. But not someone who never had them.

Quote:

In order for you to feel pleasure, your brain must be silenced -- the greater the pleasure, the greater the silencing.

Now in the case at hand: if you think (aka USE your brain) about your sick grandma, you won't feel pleasure -- because it's kinda hard for the body to silence it. Therefore, since it isn't silenced, you don't feel pleasure.
You must really hate sleep.
Quote:

I mean, it's pretty even obvious for the word itse[lf. Addiction means, you can't really "live" without that particular thing. If the change/transition for you is hard, it basically means you're addicted -- since after all, there are perfectly fine examples of other people who can live (and healthy as well, not "in agony") without it, why wouldn't you? Unless you're addicted of course (read: I'm talking about ANY addiction here).
You can see that's true for ANY addiction (of course we're interested mainly in chemical addictions here).

What I see is that it's absurd. Your definition of addiction isn't useful, since the word describes a negative dependance, but your definition is true for every dependance there is which makes no sense. We are all 2-arm-addicts then, and so on. Losing one would be really hard, since I'm so used to both - but there are perfectly fine examples of people who can and do, especially when born this way.
So that's absurd, and you have to come up with a way, way better definition of addiction.
I'll give you a hint here. Addiction has something to do with the mindset (your precious brain). The body may become used to stuff as well, but bodily withdrawal is always possible and not nearly as bad as people think. For example, bodily withdrawal of smoking is practically non-existent. If people suffer them it's more or less self-induced by the brain, because the brain is the guilty part here. However, just because you LIKE something and would be pissed if you couldn't have or do it is not enough for addiction either. Everyone likes a warm home and would be pissed like hell, if they hadn't anymore. So there's something missing... There must be a catch, otherwise it doesn't matter. I mean, you wouldn't call it an addiction when you just LOVE to hear music in your free time and couldn't really saviour it without. Sure, if an evening without a healthy dose of Metallica, followed by a little Red Hot Chilli Peppers before you close things with Mozart's Kleine Nachtmusik, would really bother you, you might call that addiction - but so what? Might look different if you to listen to them with at least 130 db, though.
Now the problem YOU have, no matter the workable definition of addiction: it's the MIND who has the problem with it.
 

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


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 07, 2009 11:34 AM

hey, Death.

You keep talking bout nature.

On the other hand, you like to say that following instincts (sex) is bad.

Make up your mind. You want to "be natural" or not?



If it's the former, everything you do except eating, sleeping and screwing is unnatural, cause nature's only goal is to extend your species by having as much offspring as possible. So you're not living like you think people should yourself.

It it's the latter, you definitely shouldn't bash sex for pleasure. Cuz by doing it, we defy the instinct that tells us to have as much offspring as possible, and we show our superiority to use sex to OUR intent. So, again, you're not living like you think people should yourself.


____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

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


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted February 07, 2009 01:41 PM

*bows at doomforge*

you win the internet
____________
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 08, 2009 12:37 AM
Edited by TheDeath at 00:39, 08 Feb 2009.

Quote:
You don't have to be high or having sex to not think about your sick grandma.
No. That's not what I meant. I meant that thinking stops you from getting pleasure, because pleasure needs silencing the brain. It doesn't mean that if you don't think about your grandma, it's the same thing, but it does make it easier for the neurochemicals to shut down your brain.

@Doomforge: I talk about how computers will surpass us and you think I can choose the former? (even though to some extent, some things are better indeed 'natural' but that's for a completely different thread).

Now seriously though, I don't bash sex for pleasure because it's unnatural (I do say that it is unnatural, but that's just making a claim, I didn't say "so it's bad"), I bash pleasure itself, because it is nature's mechanism of making you do something.

We can't "abuse" pleasure because pleasure itself is nature's mechanism of achieving one of its goals (which we 'scrap'). Metaphorically, imagine some wizard who can cast a "charm" spell on you (Puppet Master for H5 players). Now, he doesn't do so directly, you can resist his magic. And you know that his charm will lead to goal X (in sex's case, procreation). So you know the 'wizard' and his plans, and that this charm isn't the goal itself, but it is useful for those who don't want to do the goal by themselves with their reason (let's say, animals which don't even have reason, so they need that 'charm').

Now what happens? The rational solution would be either to let the charm affect you and achieve the goal (which is the entire purpose after all), or do the goal yourself (procreation) without the charm. The charm itself is worthless, else the wizard wouldn't do anything after the charm (obviously he does -- let's say, ejaculation in the analogy) if indeed the charm was the goal. But it isn't, clearly.

So what do we do? We take the charm, fully aware that it is a charm (that means, you know what), and fully aware of everything else. Bad? Not really. Bad it is once we decide to scrap the 'goal'. We get charmed, the wizard makes us do X and build a sand castle (for example), and then when we wake up (let's say), we crush it down. complete WASTE. (notice, it isn't even going to make you more "enlightened" or more "aware" of art or more educated or more creative, etc).

We choose our brains to be shut down as a GOAL in itself (twisted goal and wasteful might I add). That is why it's a waste of it. If we let it shut down not as a goal, but as a means to a goal (such as, procreation), then it would be more acceptable.

So without natural arguments: I'm not arguing that it's bad because it's unnatural, I'm arguing because it's a complete waste, as seen above. It's a waste of both our sentient abilities and reason: what we "choose" is to let our brains shut down (aka choose pleasure over sentience/consciousness/whatever you want to use), when we clearly know what to expect from it. So we decide to "abuse" it by WASTING, that is a very bad activity. But we don't waste only energy, we waste even our conscious brains (i.e because we choose to 'silence' them as a goal, again I STRESS that out, not as means!!!).

It's like giving a computer some data to compute, overclocking it to hell (and let's say, wasting lots of energy), and then scrapping the results. Wouldn't it be more efficient if you didn't TURN IT ON in the first place?

Of course we can always, for example, abuse other things as well (natural and artificial), and I don't mean to say that this 'abuse' is the only one available. All of them are a waste. For an artificial abuse, see the above overclocking example

Another analogy: eating some food for the 'taste', but then puking it out.

What makes this different than most, is that we also "waste" our sentience as a goal in itself. It's like saying "I don't want to be sentient as a goal, for XYZ amount". Take drinking (which applies perfectly here): You KNOW that you'll get drunk and you won't be very conscious (sometimes even pass out). But you CHOOSE it.

It's like putting a sign on your consciousness and saying "enemy" on it. Your own consciousness, your own sentience that sets you apart from animals, for example... and you want to get rid of it. That's what I would call "bad" and why computers would surpass us (and hope -- to give us a damn lesson already why we CLING on this pleasure like a freaking religion)


@JJ:
Quote:
Trouble is, it often works exactly the other way round. Desease starts in the brain. Ever heard of AUTO-Immune-deseases? Cancer is one. Current figures are 10% genetically disposed, 90% auto-immune-disease, which means basically slow suicide, since something is intolerable. There are others as well. In this cases, obviously, the body, if it could, would rather change the brain. Lots of bodily disfunctions are just reflections of mental ones. Most often the BRAIN is the guilty part.
If I get what you're saying, those diseases don't affect the brain itself, it's just that they have an impact because the brain needs the body for survival, but most certainly not for being controlled. The idea is also, that those diseases can be "cured" by the brain (aka make the decision to, let's say, do surgery, if possible obviously... or to make radio-therapy or whatever). These decisions are that the brain doesn't like X or Y in the body/whatever.

The idea, is that the body is like a "tool" for that. The brain needs it, just like a computer needs electricity -- however this doesn't mean the electricity does the computation, the CPU does the actual computations and may even "think" if sentient (who knows?). The electricity is there just to make it "live" (whatever).

Where am I getting? Well obviously, depriving the CPU of electricity makes it shut down, and let's say that next time it boots it is aware that it has been shut down -- then it makes other decisions etc.

Now, the actual thing in question: a short-circuit (let's say) will bring it down or damage it. It doesn't mean that itself is part of the short-circuit (like you say, the "conscious" brain/whatever is part of the body, as per my definition). It doesn't even want that. (short circuit = neurochemicals in this case)

Quote:
Here we are at the heart of the problem. Your problem (or those of the websites you prefer to read). It's the definition of addiction. If we follow this, then we are addicted to oxygen and a steady heart rhythm as well. Worse, we would be addicted to SLEEP as well, and isn't sleep the most devious way of all to silence your brain?

With this last one you may not be too hostile to the idea that the brain HAS TO be silenced once in a while for its own good. Some relaxation to be able to dive back into the struggle called life.

Of course, going back to your asexuals, what you never had you won't miss, that's got nothing to do with addiction: a warm shelter, for example. Soft, warm clothing. Are we addicted to them? If we follow you, than yes. Losing that would massively disbalance them. But not someone who never had them.
Technically yes it would be an addiction (there are even terms like computer addicts btw, same thing: if they are 'deprived' of it), but I was talking more about chemical addictions.

And yes sleep would be an addiction if someone was able to survive without it (might I add, perfectly healthy and in a "normal" mood as well), or oxygen. But there isn't anyone who can survive without oxygen.

Plus again, I am talking more about the chemical addictions (which affect the brain more directly to chain you into the addiction), although it's not uncommon to find the word 'addiction' applied to other terms (like in computer case, etc.).

Quote:
You must really hate sleep.
Well technically it wastes 6 hours of my time per day, so yes. Although I'm not ready yet to skip it, not sure how (except meditation but I'm very inexperienced at that...)

Quote:

I'll give you a hint here. Addiction has something to do with the mindset (your precious brain). The body may become used to stuff as well, but bodily withdrawal is always possible and not nearly as bad as people think. For example, bodily withdrawal of smoking is practically non-existent. If people suffer them it's more or less self-induced by the brain, because the brain is the guilty part here. However, just because you LIKE something and would be pissed if you couldn't have or do it is not enough for addiction either. Everyone likes a warm home and would be pissed like hell, if they hadn't anymore. So there's something missing... There must be a catch, otherwise it doesn't matter. I mean, you wouldn't call it an addiction when you just LOVE to hear music in your free time and couldn't really saviour it without. Sure, if an evening without a healthy dose of Metallica, followed by a little Red Hot Chilli Peppers before you close things with Mozart's Kleine Nachtmusik, would really bother you, you might call that addiction - but so what? Might look different if you to listen to them with at least 130 db, though.
Now the problem YOU have, no matter the workable definition of addiction: it's the MIND who has the problem with it.
Yes you put it very well here. However, there are problems as well (what's "negative" dependance?).

But I think it all boils down to so-called 'chemical' addictions, which is what we're talking about. That is different than, say, a "warm home" addiction or an "artistic" addiction (music for example). Now obviously, it is vague because people call those who play Counter-Strike 12 hours every day "CS addicts" but they don't call those who listen to music "music addicts"? (myself included, I could be called a 'soundtrack addict').

But there's the catch, maybe pleasure (I outlined the differences: it's basically on the same scale as pain vs sadness/depression/whatever), or maybe that it's chemical? (and thus affecting your brain directly, rather than psychologically...)

Yes I think it's because it's chemical addiction -- not exactly sure but I highly suspect that it is directly related to pleasure as well... (I may need some research into it though)
____________
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
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted February 08, 2009 12:39 AM

Quote:
It's like giving a computer some data to compute, overclocking it to hell (and let's say, wasting lots of energy), and then scrapping the results. Wouldn't it be more efficient if you didn't TURN IT ON in the first place?
Because the goal isn't the results, but running the computer.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 08, 2009 12:43 AM

It isn't a reasonable goal, it's a wasteful goal.
Now getting back to being drunk: of course the goal there is to "pass out" (whatever), but it's a wasteful goal as well. Why do we have to choose the wasteful goals? To prove to aliens how inferior we are?
____________
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
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted February 08, 2009 01:41 AM

*eyes TheDeath*

you place sex in the same pile as drugs and drinking to pass out?

yeah, sorry... but i can't really take you seriously, you need to either find new friends, get laid or both
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

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


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted February 08, 2009 04:32 AM

damn it just lost my post

@Lith: greatest post I've seen in a while





Quote:
It isn't a reasonable goal, it's a wasteful goal.
Now getting back to being drunk: of course the goal there is to "pass out" (whatever), but it's a wasteful goal as well. Why do we have to choose the wasteful goals? To prove to aliens how inferior we are?


Waste of what?
Waste of life? Money? Valuable thinking opportunities? Waste of time? Time that could be spent doing what, thinking about how superior we are to aliens whose existance we haven't the slightest of knowledge about?

What is life for if not to enjoy our selves and have fun with those we care about?

Call it hedonistic or materialistic or debauchery or whatever you want, maybe I've just fallen into the trap of "enjoying your life".





Oh, and the the goal of drinking alcohol isn't to pass out. No one aims to pass out except for like, you know, depressed people and that

It's a way to aid with socialising and having fun. Even when people drink to get hammered they still don't WANT to pass out, it's just a usual outcome, likewise with throwing up.
Alcohol is the 'social lubricant' and makes interactions less awkward, and seeing as people are spending more time online and instant chat things are becoming more awkward without instant gratification: it can't be a bad thing.



My point being that this whole 'revelations' thing about higher purpose and labelling pursuits as more noble than others... I would say it annoys me but I really don't care that much. Let's just say I disagree strongly.


Or maybe I'm wrong about this whole thing, maybe we should become enlightened and leave a wise corpse.
____________
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 08, 2009 10:33 AM

Quote:


Now seriously though, I don't bash sex for pleasure because it's unnatural (I do say that it is unnatural, but that's just making a claim, I didn't say "so it's bad"), I bash pleasure itself, because it is nature's mechanism of making you do something.

He have already established that it's not unnatural. And it's not MALING you do something: it's making you an offer you often don't want to refuse.

Quote:
I'm arguing because it's a complete waste, as seen above.
It's NOT. We have established that sex has a purpose. If you want to really talk about waste, technically spoken, life as such is a waste as well. Every life. Comes and goes, living and dying, where is the purpose?
Quote:

It's a waste of both our sentient abilities and reason: what we "choose" is to let our brains shut down (aka choose pleasure over sentience/consciousness/whatever you want to use), when we clearly know what to expect from it. So we decide to "abuse" it by WASTING, that is a very bad activity. But we don't waste only energy, we waste even our conscious brains (i.e because we choose to 'silence' them as a goal, again I STRESS that out, not as means!!!).

Saying that sex is a waste of energy and conscious brain, simply shows that YOU are wasting YOUR consciousness by claiming completely absurd things. How can you say that you waste something, when you can't name a purpose for what you would save when not "wasted".

The conscept as such is completely sick, mind you. It expresses FEAR of losing a control that is an illusion and never there in the first place.
You are not making use of your mental abilities.
Quote:

@JJ:
Quote:
Trouble is, it often works exactly the other way round. Desease starts in the brain. Ever heard of AUTO-Immune-deseases? Cancer is one. Current figures are 10% genetically disposed, 90% auto-immune-disease, which means basically slow suicide, since something is intolerable. There are others as well. In this cases, obviously, the body, if it could, would rather change the brain. Lots of bodily disfunctions are just reflections of mental ones. Most often the BRAIN is the guilty part.

If I get what you're saying, those diseases don't affect the brain itself, it's just that they have an impact because the brain needs the body for survival, but most certainly not for being controlled. The idea is also, that those diseases can be "cured" by the brain (aka make the decision to, let's say, do surgery, if possible obviously... or to make radio-therapy or whatever). These decisions are that the brain doesn't like X or Y in the body/whatever.


No. It's the brain or the mind who makes the body sick. Cancer is the result of extreme unhappiness - it's a form of suicide in the majority of cases. The mind destroys the body. The SICK mind, mind you. And that mind isn't sick because of the body.
You are a victim of the "usual" (Christian) fallacy. The mind is oh so pure, and everything else is trying to control it, to corrupt it and to put down. But of course that is wrong. It's the mind itself who does the corupting - by "inventing" the concept.
You know, it's like in the Bible: everything was peachy in paradise, until they tasted the apple. And then, wham, they saw they are naked and were ashamed and had to cover themselves. THAT is the corruption. That suddenly something perfectly natural is a reason for "shame", with shame being something the consciousness don't want to suffer. An easy example for a MENTAL controlling mechanism.

Face it, it's the MIND that is the problem.


But I think it all boils down to so-called 'chemical' addictions, which is what we're talking about. That is different than, say, a "warm home" addiction or an "artistic" addiction (music for example). Now obviously, it is vague because people call those who play Counter-Strike 12 hours every day "CS addicts" but they don't call those who listen to music "music addicts"? (myself included, I could be called a 'soundtrack addict').

But there's the catch, maybe pleasure (I outlined the differences: it's basically on the same scale as pain vs sadness/depression/whatever), or maybe that it's chemical? (and thus affecting your brain directly, rather than psychologically...)

Yes I think it's because it's chemical addiction -- not exactly sure but I highly suspect that it is directly related to pleasure as well... (I may need some research into it though)


It's clear that you have a wrong conseption about addiction. There is no such thing as chemcial addiction. Addiction as a state has two components, the bodily and the mental. The bodily aspect is the withdrawal effect - the BODILY  withdrawal effect - when you are deprived of the "drug". This is rather vague, though, since it's based on subjective impression. For some it's bad, for others it's worse. It's basically a feeling of unease and even pain based on the fact that the metablosim has adapted a stuff and now "misses" it. This is often the effect of not tailor-made chemical drugs.

The other thing is the MENTAL addiction, and that one is a lot worse. Bodily addiction is over as soon as the actual withdrawal phase is over. The body is a simple thing.
Mental addiction may last a lifetime, though, and is basically a problem of the MIND. The mind wants this and wants this BADLY.

However, that's not enough to call it an addiction. Everyone loves things and you need more to define an addiction. What you need additionally is the irrational and self-endangering behaviour. You have an addiction when you KNOW that something is "bad" for you - and you still do it. You have an addiction when the doc tells the smoker that he has to stop because of a possible cardiac failure - and the smoker still smokes on. You have an addiction, when the married man and father of two children goes to a prostitute each week and insists on doing it without a condome (this is a deliberate example to show a sex-based addiction).
It's no addiction if you live as a couple, know you are aids-free and have regular sex. It's instead sharing a relaxing, satisfying, relationship strengthening and deepening activity, that is in no way more of an addiction than going to the cinema and watching a movie together. Having sex with different partners is the same, it's just more "work" or "carefulness" needed.

Really, Death, you have to reconsider your idea about consciousmess, the mind and its greatness. All the drug and sex related problems you have cited here in this thread are not a problem because there are drugs and there is sex: they are a problem because the mind is making them one. The TWISTED mind, mind you. And the mind gets twisted MOST of all, because it learns, in younger years, that you HAVE TO feel in a certain way, that feeling another way (a way you will feel later) will be WRONG. Evil. Corrupt. Unnatural.
The mind is CHOOSING, it's not the drug or the sex that is forcing the mind to do anything. It's NOT like they say, it's the mind who is willing and the flesh that is weak; it's the mind who is either strong or weak and the flesh that is willing to obey the mind. The mind may choose.

As a sidenote, you should really consider your points now. There isn't much left of them, and it makes no sense to repeat stuff that has been disproven at least to the point where they are - friendly spoken - doubtful. That's a waste of prescious conscious time, you know. One might think you were addicted to reiterating a certain theory.

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 09, 2009 02:44 AM
Edited by TheDeath at 02:48, 09 Feb 2009.

Quote:
you place sex in the same pile as drugs and drinking to pass out?
no, pleasure. All of them have the same effect: pleasure. Logically, sex would be put under the same category. It's pleasure after all, ain't it?

Quote:
yeah, sorry... but i can't really take you seriously, you need to either find new friends, get laid or both
I suppose statements like this are more serious or show inconceivable amount of rationality

@TA: your point is invalid. If that were the case, then go with EEE, which you all obviously don't like, even though at least it would be more efficient overall (not just for YOU, but all the energy you drain in your life time for "enjoying" your life).

Also, why must I always stress this out? Joy or ANY OTHER "mental state" (including happiness) is NOT the same pleasure, it's a completely different category.

Unless you think pain is the same as depression -- pain is on the other side of pleasure but on the same category -- the same as happiness and sadness are on the same category but opposite.

What is so hard to get? One is mental, the other is neuro-chemical (so to speak, of course you can argue mental is the same, but I mean EXTERNAL neurochemicals get into the brain, etc...)

Quote:
My point being that this whole 'revelations' thing about higher purpose and labelling pursuits as more noble than others... I would say it annoys me but I really don't care that much. Let's just say I disagree strongly.
Ok TA, so suppose you are some sort of God (well, let's say, you're a scientist which inspects a closed system for more plausability). So, you see some species, which do nothing all day but struggle to survive. Now you give them an EEE and teach them that pressing a button will toggle it on and off.

Consequence: they die because they don't want to toggle it off and starve; or maybe they CANNOT since their "critical brain areas" are 'silenced' as I have quoted somewhere before, and thus can't make a decision (but they could have made BEFORE actually turning it on).

Do you congratulate them on a job well done? As enlightened species of some sort? What will aliens/AI think of that? (AI doesn't have pleasure). (ps: try to be creative, don't say it's "impossible" and all, I'm eagerly awaiting AIs to pwn us in mentality because we are more primitive than we think )

(this experiment really happened by the way, on a rat).

Quote:
It's NOT. We have established that sex has a purpose. If you want to really talk about waste, technically spoken, life as such is a waste as well. Every life. Comes and goes, living and dying, where is the purpose?
Maybe what an AI would do? (notice that usually AIs lack artistic insight as well so they CAN be worse off than us, if we don't keep on this hedonistic religion of ours -- which would be a characteristic of evolved specimen over others, because the others lack it (I mean artistic insight & appreciation)).

Quote:
Saying that sex is a waste of energy and conscious brain, simply shows that YOU are wasting YOUR consciousness by claiming completely absurd things. How can you say that you waste something, when you can't name a purpose for what you would save when not "wasted".

The conscept as such is completely sick, mind you. It expresses FEAR of losing a control that is an illusion and never there in the first place.
You are not making use of your mental abilities.
*sigh*

why do people make such a big fuss about defending sex? I'm talking about pleasure. What I say applies to ALL pleasure, it doesn't discriminate one over the other.

Yes, pleasure is a waste of consciousness. Even drunkness. After all, you CONSCIOUSLY do something that you know will render you less conscious (as I have stated previously and quoted/linked sources) and more 'silenced' in the brain that handles this consciousness.

How can it not be a waste of mental/conscious ability? It's like choosing with your brain to 'damage' it (metaphorically) for a period. It's like cutting your arm for a period and then sealing it back, but never as perfect (in that case, it's a limb "waste", what has been 'lost' in that time will never return, time doesn't flow back...).

Quote:
Cancer is the result of extreme unhappiness - it's a form of suicide in the majority of cases. The mind destroys the body. The SICK mind, mind you. And that mind isn't sick because of the body.
I thought cancer was the cells multiplying wrongly (possibly wrong DNA, so it ends up a mess) and blocking your other organs? (layman terms, not sure how you say it in biological terms)

Quote:
You are a victim of the "usual" (Christian) fallacy. The mind is oh so pure, and everything else is trying to control it, to corrupt it and to put down. But of course that is wrong. It's the mind itself who does the corupting - by "inventing" the concept.
You know, it's like in the Bible: everything was peachy in paradise, until they tasted the apple. And then, wham, they saw they are naked and were ashamed and had to cover themselves. THAT is the corruption. That suddenly something perfectly natural is a reason for "shame", with shame being something the consciousness don't want to suffer. An easy example for a MENTAL controlling mechanism.

Face it, it's the MIND that is the problem.
The mind is the one who enabled you to use reason to think up the above too
Now in all seriousness, I didn't say the mind is pure, I said it can convey reason (or art, whatever, the right hemisphere) enough to understand this and overcome it. By the way, tasting the apple is a form of mind weakness (or weak will) so that's beside the point

Quote:
However, that's not enough to call it an addiction. Everyone loves things and you need more to define an addiction.
In other words, that's like saying "We can't define addiction and it's completely arbitrary"

After all, how come people can be WoW addicts, MMO addicts or Counter-Strike addicts, but not let's say, soundtrack-addicts or 'electricity-addicts' or whatever (put them in caves with NOTHING and see how they manage).

By the way, of course the mind is making up problems for "pleasure" (not exclusively drugs or sex mind you), after all those are its enemies (well at least, to consciousness), why wouldn't it make a fuss when they attempt to shut it down?

And I'm with the mind on this one. After all, I rather much prefer to be treated 100% as a sentient being than one which is partially sentient "some of the time" (the rest of the time, it's under pleasure and 'against' the conscious/sentience). After all, there's this bias here as well, that I value reason above anything 'bodily' or pleasurable. Of course that could be considered bias but that's where I started with, you can't argue with that because it'll lead nowhere (sure you can say your bias is different but that's it)
____________
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
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted February 09, 2009 03:21 AM

Quote:
What is so hard to get? One is mental, the other is neuro-chemical (so to speak, of course you can argue mental is the same, but I mean EXTERNAL neurochemicals get into the brain, etc...)
External neurochemicals? What do you mean?

Quote:
suppose you are some sort of God (well, let's say, you're a scientist which inspects a closed system for more plausability). So, you see some species, which do nothing all day but struggle to survive. Now you give them an EEE and teach them that pressing a button will toggle it on and off.

Consequence: they die because they don't want to toggle it off and starve; or maybe they CANNOT since their "critical brain areas" are 'silenced' as I have quoted somewhere before, and thus can't make a decision (but they could have made BEFORE actually turning it on).

Do you congratulate them on a job well done?
No, of course not - because they died. Dead people can't experience pleasure. Now, if they turned EEE off to eat, then it'd be a different matter.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

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


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted February 09, 2009 05:55 AM
Edited by TitaniumAlloy at 11:50, 09 Feb 2009.

*confused*
What's EEE?


Quote:
One is mental, the other is neuro-chemical (so to speak, of course you can argue mental is the same, but I mean EXTERNAL neurochemicals get into the brain, etc...)

I don't understand the difference, apart from the time scale.



Sidenote: I couldn't care less what aliens or AI think of me
____________
John says to live above hell.

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


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted February 09, 2009 06:25 AM

*temporarily increases scroll rate for middle mouse button*

____________

 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 0.2258 seconds