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»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 09, 2009 07:51 AM

Quote:

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)).
Huh?

Quote:

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.


Reducing - even switching off - consciousness is pretty normal: you do it every day when you sleep. A waste? Nope, you need that for recharging. Moreover you assume something like the more conscious the more time, the better it is. But sleep shows that it is different. Meditation isn't about full consciousness either. In situations, where fast reflexes are needed, less consciousness (not full concentration, but a relaxed state of preparedness seems to be better as well.
Saying that you are "less" conscious is just wrong - the ego is still the same, you are reducing part of it it only for the sake of amplifying another part. It's a bit like closing your eyes while straining to hear something. After all, it's not like you are not aware of what you are doing when you have sex.
So your view here is simply not correct.
Quote:

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)
You thought wrong. Let me repeat this. About 10% of the cancer deseases are genetically programmed, an heritage. The rest is what is called an AUTO-immune desease. You see, as I said the body is quite willing to do what the mind orders it, even if the mind is doing it unconsciously. A certain form of mental sickness, a certain form of desperation, of hopelessness with life, will weaken your system enough for letting cells grow. But cancer isn't the only one. If the mind is "sick" in some way, unhappy, it will "infect" the body to reflect this.
Quote:

Quote:

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
Tasting the apple is normal for the mind to do, but that's indeed beside the point. It suffices to say, that the mind is doing the evaluation of things. Like you are doing it here in this thread. Which is basically "the root of all evil", since it is simply WEONG to separate body from mind or consciousness, to separate into "animalistic" part and "intelligent" part with the connotation it is done. A symbiosis is needed, a co-existance of these "two", not a separation.
Quote:

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"

Of course we can define addiction and have defined addiction, but the definition - like many things - are changing. There is also compulsion now, something like a not dangerous addiction.
However, as every addict knows who's conscious about their situation, it's not that difficult to determine whether you are addicted to something or not.
There is no doubt anywhere and no scientific definition that would categorize people who have sex not for procreation as addicts of sex. Of course you CAN be addicted to sex or certain rituals or aspects of it for one reason or another, but THAT would be the reason of some mental disorder.
I repeat, there is no scientifical definition of addiction somehwere that would allow to include sex as such into it.
Quote:

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?
What "problems"? And, no, pleasure is not the enemy of consciousness. Read back about stressing different parts of consciousness and suppressing others. It's done all the time. If you read a book, you are concentrated on that one, and you are somewhat dulled for everything else, for example.

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


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 09, 2009 09:51 PM

By the way, Death.

We all know clitoris has absolutely no function, except pleasure. For humans.

All mammals have it, some even have very unique forms of it (spotted hyena. It's nearly impossible to distinct a male spotted hyena from a female, because of the size of that thing!).

it's however debatable whether animals feel any pleasure during sex, except a few species, dolphins and apes, for instance.

So, maybe pleasure isn't the way of nature control?

Maybe it's just because it's.. well.. there? With no control meaning to it?

Think about it
____________
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 09, 2009 10:31 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 22:38, 09 Feb 2009.

@mvass: No, but a person who lives 100 years without pleasure feels less pleasure in its life than a person who lives 1 year with half of it pleasure, no?
so which one do you pick?
I think it's obvious which one will I pick

@TA: EEE (Eternal Electric Enjoyment) - total immersion in pleasure by inserting electrodes into certain parts of the brain. Refers to wide-known experiments on rats which, when provided with ability to trigger a switch connected to the electrodes, kept constantly pressing it until they starved to death.

BTW: "external" neurochemicals are those which influence the brain from the body. (external to the brain, in this definition, not to the whole body).


@JJ:
Quote:
Huh?
This "hedonistic" religion doesn't apply to artificial intelligence for they feel no pleasure.

Quote:
Reducing - even switching off - consciousness is pretty normal: you do it every day when you sleep. A waste? Nope, you need that for recharging. Moreover you assume something like the more conscious the more time, the better it is. But sleep shows that it is different.
Sleep is a waste but few can do without. But you can bet -- if there was a drug that eliminated the need for sleep, anyone which wants to improve and "evolve" will take it. You wouldn't? What if there was a drug to lengthen your life? (let's keep religion away for a moment; ironically, that's what not needing sleep does)

('dreaming' is a different matter altogether, I'm talking about sleeping because of tiredness).

Besides, you aren't actually "resting" in sleep, it's only because of the body and/or mind (not sure about sleep here) that you FEEL that way. Are you aware how much effort your organism goes through when you sleep and how "active" it actually is?

The effect -- and feeling of 'tiredness' isn't always justified by sleep. You can do out of it with other methods.

Also by the way, when the body is 'deprived' of bodily addictions, it still is "infecting" the brain with that desire of getting the next dose (with neurochemicals, for example).

Quote:
Meditation isn't about full consciousness either. In situations, where fast reflexes are needed, less consciousness (not full concentration, but a relaxed state of preparedness seems to be better as well.
Saying that you are "less" conscious is just wrong - the ego is still the same, you are reducing part of it it only for the sake of amplifying another part. It's a bit like closing your eyes while straining to hear something. After all, it's not like you are not aware of what you are doing when you have sex.
There are different degrees of consciousness, you may not be completely shut down but it doesn't mean you are aware as you are normally.

And meditation is about forgetting desires (the whole buddhism is about that, in fact anyway), so thinking about pleasure is kinda like... the worst thing to happen during that...

Quote:
You thought wrong. Let me repeat this. About 10% of the cancer deseases are genetically programmed, an heritage. The rest is what is called an AUTO-immune desease. You see, as I said the body is quite willing to do what the mind orders it, even if the mind is doing it unconsciously. A certain form of mental sickness, a certain form of desperation, of hopelessness with life, will weaken your system enough for letting cells grow. But cancer isn't the only one. If the mind is "sick" in some way, unhappy, it will "infect" the body to reflect this.
I was also talking about other factors, like radioactivity, which can damage some of your cells' DNA and cause cancer. What you're talking about is stress cancer, am I right?

Quote:
Tasting the apple is normal for the mind to do, but that's indeed beside the point. It suffices to say, that the mind is doing the evaluation of things. Like you are doing it here in this thread. Which is basically "the root of all evil", since it is simply WEONG to separate body from mind or consciousness, to separate into "animalistic" part and "intelligent" part with the connotation it is done. A symbiosis is needed, a co-existance of these "two", not a separation.
What if you were deprived of most bodily functions/addictions/whatever? Or of feelings? Artificial limbs... then artificial organs (may happen in future). Then, the distinction will be clear. Until then though, it seems talking is pretty pointless, but people might have argued about this before artificial limbs were made as well...

Quote:
Of course we can define addiction and have defined addiction, but the definition - like many things - are changing. There is also compulsion now, something like a not dangerous addiction.
However, as every addict knows who's conscious about their situation, it's not that difficult to determine whether you are addicted to something or not.
There is no doubt anywhere and no scientific definition that would categorize people who have sex not for procreation as addicts of sex. Of course you CAN be addicted to sex or certain rituals or aspects of it for one reason or another, but THAT would be the reason of some mental disorder.
I repeat, there is no scientifical definition of addiction somehwere that would allow to include sex as such into it.
By scientifical, you mean by data? I already provided that. However, notice that what kind of data we want to categorize in a group -- that is subjective and will always be. You can't prove that the definition of blue is the sky's color, it just is (the definition).

However, scientifically, you can for example, put both sex and drinking or other addictions into the same boat -- and obviously this means, matching them with something similar for the reason to be in the same boat. I provided that before with the sources and quotes from offline stuff (with the neurochemicals & all that). In fact, might I add, all of these lead to one thing (all of these 'substances' I mean): pleasure.

Quote:
What "problems"? And, no, pleasure is not the enemy of consciousness. Read back about stressing different parts of consciousness and suppressing others. It's done all the time. If you read a book, you are concentrated on that one, and you are somewhat dulled for everything else, for example.
That book example isn't consciousness, I kinda know that I expressed myself badly. But I hope this will clarify. For example, when you read a book, you are fully conscious on that -- what you meant above, that you may not for example hear a burglar going into your home (because you aren't paying attention to soft sounds), is that you are still 100% conscious, but don't "listen" to the ears or other signals. (this often happens in 'sound therapies' btw, with brainwave synchronizers, that put the brain activity into a certain frequency).

Notice that not 'listening' to the ears (or just about any other 'receptor' or 'sense') doesn't mean you aren't conscious. After all, that is what consciousness is all about: choices. You can still make a choice to put down the book and 'listen' to whatever sensors you want ANYTIME.

Not so in pleasure. Once you are drunk, for example, you can rarely just be "normal" anytime you choose. You chose prior to put down your consciousness, and once it is put down, you can't... well... put it back up as easily, because you require it to make choices (of course this is talking about extreme pleasure/addiction, there are various degrees to it).

This is somewhat like when you have an ability, use that ability to 'silence' it (just for kicks) and then realizing you can't turn it back on -- because you need it to 'make choices' or be a 'sentient being'. Like going back in time with a time machine, but then realizing, the machine is not there with you in the past... thus you can't go back to the future.


Quote:
it's however debatable whether animals feel any pleasure during sex, except a few species, dolphins and apes, for instance.

So, maybe pleasure isn't the way of nature control?
*sigh*
this actually strengthens my point

ok please let's cut the quote wars (sorry for this post) because it seems my point isn't even getting across correctly (even if you can argue with it, but you don't even argue with the "real thing" it seems).

So let me clarify: let's take an analogy first (don't worry I'll get to more practical examples later). A computer. Today's computer, not a future sentient AI. Does it feel?

No of course not. It doesn't even think, it's not even conscious (yet), and it doesn't even have desires. It isn't self-aware, in short.

Why does it calculate? Because its 'instinct' tells it to. This instinct is the reason it does what it does without being aware of it. Does it feel pleasure? Hell no, it doesn't feel ANYTHING, but it still does it. Are you following me?

Now animals: while it's not exactly sure how MUCH pleasure they sense or not sense at all, let's just say, it's a spectrum, and not black & white. Also supposing all of them are made similar (let's not get into, for example, asexual animals or those which don't need to mate, etc...)

An animal without much 'free consciousness' (so to speak) will basically do what its instinct drives it to. Like the computer, but not as extreme (or 'static' whatever). So why does it do the things it does? Pleasure? No well, it does have a little bit perhaps of pleasure, or maybe pain (in the opposite way) so it tries to avoid it (like starving). The thing is, it's mostly instinct driven since it cannot REASON.

Are you following? Such an animal, like the computer (but less extreme), doesn't feel much pleasure when doing what it does, because there's no need to -- it's already doing its stuff because of the instinct and lack of reason. (notice: instinct is DUMB, it has sometimes been responsible for BAD animal behavior -- i.e behavior which actually impedes their survival, so to speak, because nature doesn't make perfection, that's why things after all... evolve).

However there's a problem, nature thought: I gave some animals some more reason (dolphins, humans, etc...). These animals won't follow their instinct so blindly. So it adds that FEELING to the consciousness/reason to motivate it. That feeling -- pleasure -- in this context is supposed to represent (from an external perspective which isn't biased because it doesn't FEEL it) a 'shut up, consciousness: here, have a candy' exactly like you do to kids to shut them up or make them do something. In short: you give a candy to a kid if you want him to do something, but you don't need to give a candy to a computer to perform task X.

Someone without much reason does NOT need pleasure. Pleasure is simply the FEELING used when your consciousness is supposed to SHUT UP -- more like, a lack of it, FEELS like pleasure. If you don't have a mouth, there's no point in telling you to shut up, is it?


Is that more clear now? It would actually be better if we didn't go in circles because of misunderstandings




PS: Keep in mind that it's just a freaking FEELING. Feelings aren't supposed to be "the reality". You can always trick your feelings. You can put some electrical device that makes you feel you're being shot (read: Matrix Virtual World), but in reality you aren't, but the brain thinks you are, for example.

EDIT: Notice this isn't a MENTAL feeling. It's a bodily sensory/neurochemical feeling.
____________
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 11:00 PM

Yes, but who lives a hundred years without pleasure? (Counting joy/happiness as pleasure.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 09, 2009 11:28 PM

Quote:
(Counting joy/happiness as pleasure.)
No those are mental states. I already outlined that difference.

Or, if you want me to use your language, just give me the term that resembles 'pleasure' in my definition and I'll use that if you want. (that is, not a mental state).
____________
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 10, 2009 10:34 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 10:38, 10 Feb 2009.

Quote:

@JJ:
Quote:
Huh?
This "hedonistic" religion doesn't apply to artificial intelligence for they feel no pleasure.
Since there is no artificial intelligence, this is just an assumption without any foundation. What we have now are just machines. A computer is not much different from a TV.
Quote:

Quote:
Reducing - even switching off - consciousness is pretty normal: you do it every day when you sleep. A waste? Nope, you need that for recharging. Moreover you assume something like the more conscious the more time, the better it is. But sleep shows that it is different.
Sleep is a waste but few can do without. But you can bet -- if there was a drug that eliminated the need for sleep, anyone which wants to improve and "evolve" will take it.
If biological systems like us could exist for longer times without sleep, nature had given it to us, since sleep quite obviously is a survival risk. There ARE drugs that eliminate the need for sleep - and they all have grave consequences on overall health. Sleep is a NECESSARY part of our existence.
Quote:

('dreaming' is a different matter altogether, I'm talking about sleeping because of tiredness).
And you cannot go on and always SEPARATE things that belong together. Makes no sense. You are just wildly speculating with lots of "If"s.
Quote:

Also by the way, when the body is 'deprived' of bodily addictions, it still is "infecting" the brain with that desire of getting the next dose (with neurochemicals, for example).
It does this for a limited time only, if there IS a bodily addiction (and sex is none, mind you). It's called withdrawal. Addiction of the MIND, though, may last a lifetime.

Quote:
There are different degrees of consciousness, you may not be completely shut down but it doesn't mean you are aware as you are normally.

Exactly. And with sex it's the same. You are FULLY aware of what is happening and some sensory input is heightened while ohers are reduced. Just as with other things. The concentration of the brain as hub or interface for every neural action is fully there. However, the THINKING mind is dimmed. Nothing wrong with that - you do it willingly. Lots of people are not even able to anymore. A real bad sideeffect of civilization.

Quote:

What you're talking about is stress cancer, am I right?
I don't know what you mean with stress cancer, but if you think that stress cancer is cancer you get because the organ in question was under severe stress, no, it's not what I mean. Or do you think so many women get breast cancer because there is so much stress on them?
No, for God's sake. Not quote correct, but easy to understand: if you HATE yourself and/or your body or your life, the body will SUFFER. You'll get ill. Cancer is one such illness. In fact, lots of intelligent people think that basically ALL illnesses are the consequence of a mental problem, but you don't need to go that far for the point to make here:
Often enough it's the MIND which makes the body sick, and in that case the body would want a different mind, but has no say in it.
Quote:

Quote:
What if you were deprived of most bodily functions/addictions/whatever? Or of feelings? Artificial limbs... then artificial organs (may happen in future). Then, the distinction will be clear. Until then though, it seems talking is pretty pointless, but people might have argued about this before artificial limbs were made as well...
You are arguing for arguing's sake: we just don't know what would happen then. For one thing reproduction would not work the normal way, obviously, so it would be done by cloning probably, but every discussion about that is mere SPECULATION. We don't even know if it's possible at all - we might be extinct within 2 generations due to a dramatic increase of suicidal tendencies within our species.
Quote:

Quote:

I repeat, there is no scientifical definition of addiction somehwere that would allow to include sex as such into it.
By scientifical, you mean by data? I already provided that. However, notice that what kind of data we want to categorize in a group -- that is subjective and will always be. You can't prove that the definition of blue is the sky's color, it just is (the definition).

However, scientifically, you can for example, put both sex and drinking or other addictions into the same boat

No, you are wrong. Pleasure isn't addictive - not more so than a warm living room. Not by ANY definition of addiction that makes sense and NOT classifies the whole life as a chain of addictions. Nor is sex, and sex is a lot more than pleasure. Nor is drinking addictive because it's pleasurable. Whatever sources you dug out, the only thing they got right is that something chemical is going on when having sex - but there is ALWAYS something chemical going on.

and obviously this means, matching them with something similar for the reason to be in the same boat. I provided that before with the sources and quotes from offline stuff (with the neurochemicals & all that). In fact, might I add, all of these lead to one thing (all of these 'substances' I mean): pleasure.

Quote:
that you may not for example hear a burglar going into your home (because you aren't paying attention to soft sounds), is that you are still 100% conscious, but don't "listen" to the ears or other signals. (this often happens in 'sound therapies' btw, with brainwave synchronizers, that put the brain activity into a certain frequency).

Notice that not 'listening' to the ears (or just about any other 'receptor' or 'sense') doesn't mean you aren't conscious. After all, that is what consciousness is all about: choices. You can still make a choice to put down the book and 'listen' to whatever sensors you want ANYTIME.

Not so in pleasure. Once you are drunk, for example

Please. Being drunk has nothing to do with PLEASURE nor SEX, for god's sake. You are conscious as well when having sex, AND you can anytime switch back, even while at it - of course you can make a choice. You really should try it. You wouldn't want it WITHOUT A GOOD REASON, obviously, but when you are drunk and a burglar is at your door, you'll still be drunk, while with sex you'd switch back automatically. That's why the "intoxication" is completely different, and that's why you cannot compare those.


You can forget the computer part; A computer is a machine, not much different from a TV or a fridge. It functions. It has no "instincts".
Quote:

Now animals: while it's not exactly sure how MUCH pleasure they sense or not sense at all, let's just say
Assumptions, yet again, especially in combination with:
Quote:

Such an animal, like the computer (but less extreme), doesn't feel much pleasure when doing what it does, because there's no need to


So while you say that it's not sure how much an animal senses or not senses, you go on telling us that it doesn't feel much because there is no need?
That's just nonsense.
Quote:

Pleasure is simply the FEELING used when your consciousness is supposed to SHUT UP -- more like, a lack of it, FEELS like pleasure.
That's just another guilt-driven rationalization of how the consciousness is oh so pure and how pleasure in general and sex specifically is the devil. In fact, the devil is actually this process of poisoning everything with GUILT, degrading beautiful and basically INNOCENT things to something subhuman and corripting.
The ultimate sin.

Quote:

PS: Keep in mind that it's just a freaking FEELING. Feelings aren't supposed to be "the reality". You can always trick your feelings. You can put some electrical device that makes you feel you're being shot (read: Matrix Virtual World), but in reality you aren't, but the brain thinks you are, for example.


Not a discussion now about what reality is. With your own words (italic) you say that the brain don't know what is real and what not. Not to mention what is SUPPOSED to be real and what not. If you THINK something is real, than for all subjective purposes it IS real, at least for you. There is no way to check for an "objective" reality.

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted February 10, 2009 02:50 PM

Quote:
No those are mental states. I already outlined that difference.
The only difference is time period and intensity.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 10, 2009 03:54 PM

Quote:
The only difference is time period and intensity.
What?

how many times must I quote myself? It seems I'll have to do it again

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...)


The relationship between pleasure and happiness is the same as between pain and sadness. Get it over your head already! (don't argue with me, this is what I mean with pleasure -- you're always just arguing semantics, etc... who cares? give me another word if you want that means this)

why don't you just point exactly what is wrong here... instead of going through 'alternative' routes or shortcuts?

@JJ:
Quote:
Since there is no artificial intelligence, this is just an assumption without any foundation. What we have now are just machines. A computer is not much different from a TV.
There are AIs already, but the only difference is, that they are still only 'instinct' based (i.e UNCONSCIOUS brain), because we haven't made them able to process more yet.

I suppose you never heard of Neural Networks used in computers? This stuff already exists: I use a DSP plugin effect every day with it to improve the quality of .mp3 (because of compression). Unfortunately, this stuff we have now is just the UNCONSCIOUS brain, so to speak -- we haven't made a conscious AI yet...

Computers can simulate many things: neural networks and genetic algorithms being one of them. The efficiency with which they emulate, though, is debatable. (compared to the "real" thing, they are a lot slower)

Quote:
If biological systems like us could exist for longer times without sleep, nature had given it to us, since sleep quite obviously is a survival risk. There ARE drugs that eliminate the need for sleep - and they all have grave consequences on overall health. Sleep is a NECESSARY part of our existence.
Yes, and there were drugs who were 'improving your muscles' 10 years ago with grave consequences too. I read somewhere that they made a new drug that doesn't pose any long-term health risks but exercises your muscles correctly. Obviously, maybe we could do similar to sleep.

Quote:
And you cannot go on and always SEPARATE things that belong together. Makes no sense. You are just wildly speculating with lots of "If"s.
That is a "different matter" altogether because we would be going into the supernatural realm -- i.e whether dreams are supernatural or not. If they aren't, then what I say would apply. Otherwise, I have no idea. That's why I mentioned that.

Quote:
Exactly. And with sex it's the same. You are FULLY aware of what is happening and some sensory input is heightened while ohers are reduced. Just as with other things. The concentration of the brain as hub or interface for every neural action is fully there. However, the THINKING mind is dimmed. Nothing wrong with that - you do it willingly. Lots of people are not even able to anymore. A real bad sideeffect of civilization.
Thinking is the foundation of consciousness. If critical parts of the brain are silenced (and the unconscious 'reward' part is enabled so to speak), then you are unconscious.

What I'm trying to get across (and I said it to Doom as well) is this: pleasure is the feeling when your body & brain meet two criteria (in short, these two criteria make you feel that way):

1) silencing of critical brain parts (conscious obviously, not subconscious)
2) maybe enhancing the 'reward' part (but this is variable depending on the pleasure in question)



As for cancer, I thought it was radiation, smoking, stuff like that. You know, cellphones, cigarettes, food, etc...

Quote:
You are arguing for arguing's sake: we just don't know what would happen then. For one thing reproduction would not work the normal way, obviously, so it would be done by cloning probably, but every discussion about that is mere SPECULATION. We don't even know if it's possible at all - we might be extinct within 2 generations due to a dramatic increase of suicidal tendencies within our species.
This isn't arguing for arguing's sake: after all, we already have people with artificial limbs. We have people without the sex drive. We have people with all the criteria required and they are still living healthy. Remember though, that people might have said the same in the past (before we used artificial limbs), and now this makes it even more obvious that it's possible, since we have them already.

Quote:
Whatever sources you dug out, the only thing they got right is that something chemical is going on when having sex - but there is ALWAYS something chemical going on.
But these are driven up by the unconscious/subconscious/whatever! It attempts to control the conscious

Quote:
You are conscious as well when having sex, AND you can anytime switch back, even while at it - of course you can make a choice. You really should try it. You wouldn't want it WITHOUT A GOOD REASON, obviously, but when you are drunk and a burglar is at your door, you'll still be drunk, while with sex you'd switch back automatically. That's why the "intoxication" is completely different, and that's why you cannot compare those.
You're joking right? I mean, I thought it was pretty common, after sex you are exhausted... plus those neurochemicals act as sleeping pills...

Quote:
You can forget the computer part; A computer is a machine, not much different from a TV or a fridge. It functions. It has no "instincts".
Instinct = hardwired stuff. Even the term 'hardwired' is used to apply it for biological specimens (ex: Eating is hardwired into us/our brains/body/whatever), where do you think the term comes from? can't be electronics, can it?

Quote:
So while you say that it's not sure how much an animal senses or not senses, you go on telling us that it doesn't feel much because there is no need?
That's just nonsense.
Uhm even Doom pointed this out and there are lots of documentaries on National Geographic about it, regarding the animals I mean. I added another entity called the computer, and you know what's the good thing? my "theory" predicts it good even for a computer, which is completely different -- what better theory do you want?

By the way, I am drawing conclusions from the data. If those with consciousness/reason feel pleasure while a computer, or a lower animal probably doesn't, I try to make the connections. Seems to me like you say something like "Let's not make the connections, there's absolutely no way that we can know for sure (not that I would even WANT to know anyway, I hope no one knows), even if the conclusion is reasonable drawn and has high chance of being true" (obviously, just the 'style' )

Quote:
Not a discussion now about what reality is. With your own words (italic) you say that the brain don't know what is real and what not. Not to mention what is SUPPOSED to be real and what not. If you THINK something is real, than for all subjective purposes it IS real, at least for you. There is no way to check for an "objective" reality.
uhm you're not a fan of objective measurements/reality are you? many philosophers/scientists will disagree with you, so let's not get into it

Now, when I said that your brain thinks X, I meant obviously the unconscious -- your consciousness can always think whatever you WANT.
____________
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 10, 2009 04:39 PM

Quote:


@JJ:
Quote:
Since there is no artificial intelligence, this is just an assumption without any foundation. What we have now are just machines. A computer is not much different from a TV.
There are AIs already, but the only difference is, that they are still only 'instinct' based (i.e UNCONSCIOUS brain), because we haven't made them able to process more yet.
We have no idea what the Unconscious actually is and you are claiming that our computers are unconscious brain? You must be kidding. Your points are so full of assumptions, I don't see any foundation there.



Quote:
If biological systems like us could exist for longer times without sleep, nature had given it to us, since sleep quite obviously is a survival risk. There ARE drugs that eliminate the need for sleep - and they all have grave consequences on overall health. Sleep is a NECESSARY part of our existence.
Yes, and there were drugs who were 'improving your muscles' 10 years ago with grave consequences too. I read somewhere that they made a new drug that doesn't pose any long-term health risks but exercises your muscles correctly. Obviously, maybe we could do similar to sleep.
"If", "maybe" "somewhere". Please.

Quote:

Quote:
Exactly. And with sex it's the same. You are FULLY aware of what is happening and some sensory input is heightened while ohers are reduced. Just as with other things. The concentration of the brain as hub or interface for every neural action is fully there. However, the THINKING mind is dimmed. Nothing wrong with that - you do it willingly. Lots of people are not even able to anymore. A real bad sideeffect of civilization.
Thinking is the foundation of consciousness. If critical parts of the brain are silenced (and the unconscious 'reward' part is enabled so to speak), then you are unconscious.
No, that's wrong. You are unconscious when you are not conscious of yourself. And "thinking" is not exclusively a function of phrasing thoughts with speech.
Quote:

As for cancer, I thought it was radiation, smoking, stuff like that. You know, cellphones, cigarettes, food, etc...
How often will you repeat what you mean? I understood it when you mentioned it the first time. So how many more times am I supposed to give you the same answer? Research it a bit, if you don't want to believe me.

Quote:
This isn't arguing for arguing's sake: after all, we already have people with artificial limbs. We have people without the sex drive. We have people with all the criteria required and they are still living healthy. Remember though, that people might have said the same in the past (before we used artificial limbs), and now this makes it even more obvious that it's possible, since we have them already.
Of course it is. A couple lines above you wrote about artificial intelligence. We may be able to put a brain into an artificial body and we may be able to put an artificial brain into a natural body, but so what? An artificial arm is one thing, but do you really believe someone with an artifical arm is happy about having an artificial arm now? Of course you CAN survive with a lot less than we actually have, but since when is the bare minimum a goal?
[quote9
Quote:
Whatever sources you dug out, the only thing they got right is that something chemical is going on when having sex - but there is ALWAYS something chemical going on.
But these are driven up by the unconscious/subconscious/whatever! It attempts to control the conscious
It doesn't, for god's sake. It would, if you'd be reduced to a vegetable. But you are not.

Quote:
You're joking right? I mean, I thought it was pretty common, after sex you are exhausted... plus those neurochemicals act as sleeping pills...
You mean, athletics and work are mind-conbtrolling addictions killing your consciousness? Not to mention TV...
Quote:

Eating is hardwired into us/our brains/body/whatever), where do you think the term comes from? can't be electronics, can it?
It's obviously not. It's just a basic configuration that we can change.
Quote:

Quote:
So while you say that it's not sure how much an animal senses or not senses, you go on telling us that it doesn't feel much because there is no need?
That's just nonsense.
Uhm even Doom pointed this out and there are lots of documentaries on National Geographic about it, regarding the animals I mean. I added another entity called the computer, and you know what's the good thing? my "theory" predicts it good even for a computer, which is completely different -- what better theory do you want?

By the way, I am drawing conclusions from the data. If those with consciousness/reason feel pleasure while a computer, or a lower animal probably doesn't, I try to make the connections. Seems to me like you say something like "Let's not make the connections, there's absolutely no way that we can know for sure (not that I would even WANT to know anyway, I hope no one knows), even if the conclusion is reasonable drawn and has high chance of being true" (obviously, just the 'style' )
Your theory is nonsense, because "doesn't feel much" is a useless discription, especially when two sentences before that you write that we actually don't know HOW much animals feel. It's simply a contradiction.
Quote:

Quote:
Not a discussion now about what reality is. With your own words (italic) you say that the brain don't know what is real and what not. Not to mention what is SUPPOSED to be real and what not. If you THINK something is real, than for all subjective purposes it IS real, at least for you. There is no way to check for an "objective" reality.
uhm you're not a fan of objective measurements/reality are you? many philosophers/scientists will disagree with you, so let's not get into it
They don't, actually. As we all know, reality is RELATIVE. Measuremeants are only "objective" in their respective environment, and even there measurements have their limits. Science makes statements only for the relative environment we live in and is not claiming an absolute validity.


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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 10, 2009 06:07 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 18:09, 10 Feb 2009.

Quote:
We have no idea what the Unconscious actually is and you are claiming that our computers are unconscious brain? You must be kidding. Your points are so full of assumptions, I don't see any foundation there.
We don't know how it works, but we know what it does. We can simulate that. What is so hard to get?

Do we know evolution 100%? No, but we know how it WORKS. And we can make simulators. Go figure, people have been paid big bucks to make genetic algorithms. Do you think they are all worthless?

For what? Because we don't know 100% of ANYTHING? We never know 100% of anything, because science doesn't know the truth. Just as below with "how much animals feel". Yes we don't know how much they feel EXACTLY. But we can observe the effects (analyzing their brain states, frequencies, and doing a scan for example).

This isn't 100% accurate but it is something at least. Should we ignore it, like you say? What's the point then, we'll never find out...

Quote:
"If", "maybe" "somewhere". Please.
I'm pretty certain, but I don't know if humans can do it -- that's a different matter. If we can exercise the muscles with a drug, we can easily exercise whatever sleep does, provided we understand the whole things it does in sleep. Obviously -- that could be too difficult to accomplish for a human being, but it is possible. Maybe impractical? Maybe people don't want to get rid of sleep? These are examples why it probably won't happen, but it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Yes, "maybe" we can do something for sleep and my bet is on it since it's a high probability -- but I don't know if we WILL. "Can do" and "Will do" are two different things.

Quote:
No, that's wrong. You are unconscious when you are not conscious of yourself. And "thinking" is not exclusively a function of phrasing thoughts with speech.
When you sleepwalk, you aren't conscious yet your sensors actually work for the hardwired stuff (instincts & unconscious). When you are in a less-than-conscious state, you don't feel as much as you would otherwise -- doesn't mean your sensors don't work (like in sleepwalking case), it means the CONSCIOUS brain (the unconscious still does) doesn't get it, because it's overwhelmed with neurochemicals that act like a sleeping pill. You know, like anesthesia.

Quote:
How often will you repeat what you mean? I understood it when you mentioned it the first time. So how many more times am I supposed to give you the same answer? Research it a bit, if you don't want to believe me.
Ok I will research it but I doubt that mental cancer illness is the 'major' cause (i.e over 50%) of cancer. And yes this was what I meant with stress cancer -- cancer that results from stress (of the mind -- i.e you feel stressed).

Quote:
Of course it is. A couple lines above you wrote about artificial intelligence. We may be able to put a brain into an artificial body and we may be able to put an artificial brain into a natural body, but so what? An artificial arm is one thing, but do you really believe someone with an artifical arm is happy about having an artificial arm now? Of course you CAN survive with a lot less than we actually have, but since when is the bare minimum a goal?
Of course he/she isn't happy (mostly because it isn't flexible) but it isn't the point. The point was to outline the distinction between "body" and "mind". (mind = conscious brain, not like the motor unconscious ones, like the cerebellum).

Quote:
You mean, athletics and work are mind-conbtrolling addictions killing your consciousness? Not to mention TV...
Those are boring you, not triggering any neurochemicals to be released in your brain. I think we're stepping on the wrong line. In short, you don't feel like staying awake (conscious) anymore (lack of something interesting maybe), not that you are "forced" to not be awake.

Quote:
It's obviously not. It's just a basic configuration that we can change.
Instinct?
We can't change the instinct (unless you mean we use genetic modifications ofc).

Quote:
Your theory is nonsense, because "doesn't feel much" is a useless discription, especially when two sentences before that you write that we actually don't know HOW much animals feel. It's simply a contradiction.
Yes we don't know HOW much they feel -- that is not an EXACT measurement! Doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING. There's a difference.

If you asked me to give you an exact number for both, I wouldn't be able to (unless I research some new discovery made recently). If you asked me which comparatively is "less" or "a lot less", I could give you that info (as I did). But nowhere near "exactness".

Quote:
They don't, actually. As we all know, reality is RELATIVE. Measuremeants are only "objective" in their respective environment, and even there measurements have their limits. Science makes statements only for the relative environment we live in and is not claiming an absolute validity.
I meant in measurements involving an external perspective that doesn't 'feel' anything, but just scanning the brain activity/chemicals involved/brain frequencies/etc...

For example, analyzing a meditating monk from an external perspective is "objective", in the sense that you don't "feel" what the monk does (i.e feel full, bliss, no desires, etc... as meditation is about). They made cool discoveries about the brain waves in this case (and made computer emulators with sound, if you ever heard of "brainwave synchronizers" for sound therapy based on 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
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 10, 2009 10:53 PM

Quote:
Quote:
We have no idea what the Unconscious actually is and you are claiming that our computers are unconscious brain? You must be kidding. Your points are so full of assumptions, I don't see any foundation there.
We don't know how it works, but we know what it does. We can simulate that. What is so hard to get?
Death, we know nothing of that sort. We don't KNOW what the mind is, how it works, what creativity is and hat genius is and so on. We don't even know what sub- or unconscious IS, not to mention how it works. To claim that a current computer is comparable with an animal "guided by instincts" is... unscientific at the least
Quote:

This isn't 100% accurate but it is something at least. Should we ignore it, like you say? What's the point then, we'll never find out...
You can either prove something or not.
FILLING OUT THE GAPS ON ASSUMPTIONS IS RELIGION!
Quote:

Quote:
"If", "maybe" "somewhere". Please.
...pretty certain, but... if humans can... If we can... provided we understand... Obviously... could be too difficult... but it is possible. Maybe... Maybe... probably... but it doesn't mean it's impossible.
No more questions, your honor.
Quote:

Quote:
No, that's wrong. You are unconscious when you are not conscious of yourself. And "thinking" is not exclusively a function of phrasing thoughts with speech.
When you sleepwalk, you aren't conscious yet your sensors actually work for the hardwired stuff (instincts & unconscious). When you are in a less-than-conscious state, you don't feel as much as you would otherwise -- doesn't mean your sensors don't work (like in sleepwalking case), it means the CONSCIOUS brain (the unconscious still does) doesn't get it, because it's overwhelmed with neurochemicals that act like a sleeping pill. You know, like anesthesia.
I seriously dount you ever had sex, because you don't know what you are talking. Not to mention that it is nonsense. A "less-than-conscious" state? Buddy, take it from someone who should know: if you have sex, you are ABSOLUTELY conscious, except when you are drugged otherwise.

Quote:
Ok I will research it but I doubt that mental cancer illness is the 'major' cause (i.e over 50%) of cancer. And yes this was what I meant with stress cancer -- cancer that results from stress (of the mind -- i.e you feel stressed).
Do that. I mean, hat do you think why it is called AUTO-immune desease?

Quote:
Of course he/she isn't happy (mostly because it isn't flexible) but it isn't the point. The point was to outline the distinction between "body" and "mind". (mind = conscious brain, not like the motor unconscious ones, like the cerebellum).
For the sake of this issue the distinction is not relevant. A human is a human and consists of what a human is born with; part of this may be damaged, but replaced. That includes part of the brain. At this stage a replacement isn't possible, but that's true for other parts as well. A human that loses complete control over the body is still a human, obviously, but cannot survive on his or her own. Such humans are not the rule and are certainly not happy about it, even though they may learn to live about it. Examples THE OTHER WAY ROUND happen as well: mentally damaged persons, still persons as well, with a fully working body, but a damaged mind. What would that prove?

Quote:
It's obviously not. It's just a basic configuration that we can change.
Instinct?
We can't change the instinct (unless you mean we use genetic modifications ofc).
We can and we do. Hunger strike. We can just DRINK stuff. WE can take it intravenouly. We may commit suicide. All against the instinct. Instinct in't dominant in us. It's there, but we don't have to follow it.
Quote:

Quote:
Your theory is nonsense, because "doesn't feel much" is a useless discription, especially when two sentences before that you write that we actually don't know HOW much animals feel. It's simply a contradiction.
Yes we don't know HOW much they feel -- that is not an EXACT measurement! Doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING. There's a difference.
We know a wee bit is not enough.
Quote:

Quote:
They don't, actually. As we all know, reality is RELATIVE. Measuremeants are only "objective" in their respective environment, and even there measurements have their limits. Science makes statements only for the relative environment we live in and is not claiming an absolute validity.
I meant in measurements involving an external perspective that doesn't 'feel' anything, but just scanning the brain activity/chemicals involved/brain frequencies/etc...
Those measurements don't constitute a reality. They are just data that must be correlated, compared and interpreted. They have only statistical relevance.
Quote:

For example, analyzing a meditating monk from an external perspective is "objective", in the sense that you don't "feel" what the monk does (i.e feel full, bliss, no desires, etc... as meditation is about). They made cool discoveries about the brain waves in this case (and made computer emulators with sound, if you ever heard of "brainwave synchronizers" for sound therapy based on it ).
Yeah, really cool. I wonder, though, why those cool monks in their no-desire bliss don't create pieces of great art. Or are enlightened in any way that they can hare. The mind is able to self-hypnotize itself; you know self-indoktrination, even self-healing, all that is possible. So what? From the same culture come the great old works about sexuality - they strive to reach higher spheres of consciousness in  many different ways there.

To stop this useless quoting:

Your main pomits are based on misconceptions, assumptions or wrong connections: whatt you have is chemical body activity when a human engages in sex. You have that all the time though. What you furthermore have is a shifting of consciousness priorities, you may call it; the easiest example is that the body is damping existing pain if you engage in sex. Now this would be the strongest indicator for a mind-controlling effct - however the trouble here is, that pain is a symptom of the body as well which the mind only registers, in your language spoken. The body doesn't do anything which would inhibit consciousness - it just helps consciousness along to enjoy the ride. You can stop anytime, there is no aftereffect and you are not "drugged". At best, you might say that you are putting on a blindfold, but no handcuffs: you can remove the blindfold at antime - which is QUITE different than what happens with real drugs.

The body is not the enemy of the mind; however, the mind may be the enemy of the body. If anything, than it's the MIND tht ruins the body in case of drug addiction, illnesses and mental disorders, not the other way round. It's the mind that let's the body go to waste, become fat, lazy and ill. THE MIND.

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted February 10, 2009 11:48 PM

TheDeath:
Pleasure, happiness, and depression are all in the same "category". Pain is in another. The opposite of pleasure is something more like, "Damn, that sucks", and then that feeling being over in 5 minutes. There's no real opposite of pain except the feeling you have when the pain suddenly stops.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

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


Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
posted February 10, 2009 11:53 PM

...and there she taught him the mystery that the wisest man could not teach him.

- Ursula Le Guin
____________

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 11, 2009 01:14 AM
Edited by TheDeath at 01:16, 11 Feb 2009.

@mvass:
Quote:
Pleasure, happiness, and depression are all in the same "category". Pain is in another.
Why? For one we do know that some minor forms of pleasure (and pain) are given straight by sensors, which makes them extremely similar, but opposites.

Researchers have long known that the body can activate its own form of pain relief in response to painful stimuli. Now, UC San Francisco investigators have determined that, in rats, this long-lasting relief is produced by the brain's "reward" pathway -- the neural circuitry activated by drugs of abuse. In their study, published in the August 15 issue of Journal of Neuroscience, the investigators determined that, at its maximum, the pain relief was as potent as a high dose of morphine.

I give below examples (with JJ) of drugs being similar to sex, or just about any other pleasure. The above also means that pleasure, as can be seen, is the opposite of pain, both working on the same level.


@JJ:
Quote:
Death, we know nothing of that sort. We don't KNOW what the mind is, how it works, what creativity is and hat genius is and so on. We don't even know what sub- or unconscious IS, not to mention how it works. To claim that a current computer is comparable with an animal "guided by instincts" is... unscientific at the least
This thing got so widespread that even a single dude without much resources can make one. Some quotations of interest:

If I had the resources, I would use a multi-legged robot in a real world environment and a full assortment of sensors and effectors.

Animal is not a typical chess program. There is no look-ahead tree-searching algorithm. Animal does not generate millions of moves like IBM's  Deep Blue supercomputer. More significantly, Animal does not have a position evaluation function. It learns pretty much the same way a human being does, that is, by sensing and interacting with its environment through trial and error.

The main advantage of Animal's spiking network is that it is not designed with a specific environment or specific sensors and effectors in mind. That is to say, the network is not programmed to learn chess or anything in particular. It is only programmed to discover temporal correlations in multiple streams of sensory events without regard to the origin or the type of the events. Consequently, it can be adapted to serve as the brain for all sorts of intelligent systems and applications, such as robots, speech or optical character recognition systems. The network is also designed to be scalable, i.e., it automatically creates new neurons as it learns.


Note that I do not disagree entirely with what you said: what these neural networks do is model the instincts, the subconscious and the unconscious, not the "reason" or the CONSCIOUSNESS (precisely PROVING how they are distinct, case closed). For example, we pretty much know that the cerebellum (which is unconscious) is tied with the motor functions. I don't think it's really impossible to make a computer chip that does the same, now is it? By any sense of the word (perfect example above)...

Also remember this thing was made by a single guy, and computers aren't powerful enough to simulate animal behavior in REAL TIME -- but you can simulate the behavior of a not-very-complex animal (mostly one that doesn't have a conscious at all), let's say 1 second of its life, with 1 hour of processing code. Yes, it's slow as hell on today's computers, but it's possible.

Further:
One might imagine that AI systems with harmless goals will be harmless. This paper instead shows that intelligent systems will need to be carefully designed to prevent them from behaving in harmful ways. We identify a number of "drives" that will appear in sufficiently advanced AI systems of any design. We call them drives because they are tendencies which will be present unless explicitly counteracted. We start by showing that goal-seeking systems will have drives to model their own operation and to improve themselves. We then show that self-improving systems will be driven to clarify their goals and represent them as economic utility functions. They will also strive for their actions to approximate rational economic behavior. This will lead almost all systems to protect their utility functions from modification and their utility measurement systems from corruption. We also discuss some exceptional systems which will want to modify their utility functions. We next discuss the drive toward self-protection which causes systems try to prevent themselves from being harmed. Finally we examine drives toward the acquisition of resources and toward their efficient utilization. We end with a discussion of how to incorporate these insights in designing intelligent technology which will lead to a positive future for humanity.
From Stephen Omohundro's "Basic AI Drives". If that's not primitive instinct, I don't know what is (remember, this means 0% consciousness).

Now let me say up front that I'll cut the quotes. Further, what you said about the instinct that we can "ignore" it is exactly what I said: we can ignore it, and for very good reasons (rationality and reason after all, are what sets us apart and sentient). However it doesn't mean we "reprogrammed" ourselves unless we do it for a long time or we don't grow addicted to some of the instincts. (surprisingly, instincts are more powerful the more they're used -- just like muscles; so it's harder to pull one off if you used it a lot -- so yeah it's an 'addiction' of sorts).

Quote:
You can either prove something or not.
FILLING OUT THE GAPS ON ASSUMPTIONS IS RELIGION!
You're joking right? You see, science never proves anything.

If it proved something as real, then it means that thing will never change. What happens when a theory never changes or is infallible? You have religion.

Science NEVER equals truth. NEVER EVER EVER. Simple logic:

Truth NEVER changes.
Science MUST change. If science doesn't change, it's a religion.

Quote:
No more questions, your honor.
I didn't say that, I said it's a very high probability. Yes, i did say maybe, after all everything is "maybe" with different chances of being true. There is no absolute truth in science. That's stuff reserved for religion so basically what you're requesting of me now, is to argue with your religion.

But what's interesting is that I provided an analogy: if we can make drugs (and we can) that exercise the muscles, which previous skeptics said it's impossible, couldn't we make ones that exercise/simulate the stuff happening when we sleep? If you ask me, those drugs that exercise the muscles considerably improved the chances of that happening. Yes it's still a MAYBE, god dammit EVERYTHING is a maybe (maybe the atoms don't even exist and we live in a virtual world? eh?).

You know what would have been the point if Newton said "Maybe my theories are not correct"? Yes maybe they weren't (and they aren't) but that doesn't make them worthless for goodness' sake! Especially not in that period.

Quote:
I seriously dount you ever had sex, because you don't know what you are talking. Not to mention that it is nonsense. A "less-than-conscious" state? Buddy, take it from someone who should know: if you have sex, you are ABSOLUTELY conscious, except when you are drugged otherwise.
I'm growing tired of these arguments which are unscientific at best. In fact, there's really little point in explaining further, and even quoting different sources will probably make you shake your head off. But this one last time, because it's not like they are anything new from what I've said. Further, you don't just have to have sex normally -- you have to have sex and analyze how you feel, which most people don't, because it ruins the pleasure. If you don't analyze how are you supposed to know exactly how you feel or what happens if you aren't even aware? Nevermind that first-hand experience is one of the worst possible arguments in science. (remember: without analyzing, it's pointless, regardless of how much a person had sex). But here we go:

Your primitive brain accomplishes these goals of more progeny and promiscuity by manipulating your brain chemistry, and thus your desires and thoughts.
definitely, not mind control... no way to draw a parallel here... (the primitive brain, by the way, is the subconscious/unconnscious part that deals with pleasure and 'silencing' the rational brain (which is just a bit above that, physically speaking))

When rats were wired so that they could push a lever in their cages to stimulate the nerve cells on which dopamine acts, they just kept hitting the lever until they dropped -- not even pausing to eat or investigate potential mates. Dopamine is highly addictive; the rise in prolactin puts the brakes on.
definitely, addiction is something entirely else -- the point is, while I try to give out examples, reasons, all sorts of arguments, and even research (I did a lot before this thread over the years mind you), but yet nothing seems to be good enough for you -- better to remain blind I guess, and not even ATTEMPT to define it or DRAW THE CONNECTION LINES between stuff. Oh and by the way, that just says it EEE is better than sex, why don't you try it? No I mean seriously give me a good reason -- those rats must have viewed sex as something really 'inferior' in pleasure. You'll do everyone a favor: less resources wasted for you 'pleasure', you will gain more optimum goals (since pleasure is your goal), etc...

Further:

During the "hangover," or "low-dopamine" portion of the cycle, you may feel abandoned, or as if someone is demanding things from you in ways that you cannot tolerate. Or you may desperately seek new highs (alcohol, sweets, new partners, pornography, and so forth) to raise your dopamine levels again.
Yep there's no connection whatsoever with alcohol and sex -- I'm the target of all your bullies because I attempt to draw the lines, the connections, and the resemblances, can you imagine how I DARE to draw the connections here? How do I even dare to do that? What kind of a freak am I?

Both low dopamine and high prolactin make your world look bleak -- and increase your craving for better sex or new partners who would raise your dopamine levels (and set you on another addictive cycle of highs and lows). Together these neurochemicals probably account for the "end of the honeymoon," which nearly all couples experience within a year of marriage.
addiction yet again...

Human pleasure may be thought of as the experiential correlate of an assessment of high utility. But pleasure is mediated by neurochemicals and these are subject to manipulation. At a recent discussion session I ran on designing our future, one of the biggest fears of many participants was that we would become "wireheads". This term refers to experiments in which rats were given the ability to directly stimulate their pleasure centers by pushing a lever. The rats pushed the lever until they died, ignoring even food or sex for it. Today's crack addicts have a similar relentless drive toward their drug. As we more fully understand the human cognitive architecture we will undoubtedly be able to create drugs or design electrical stimulation that will produce the experience of pleasure far more effectively than anything that exists today.
I suppose this isn't enough for you -- you try to avoid the inevitable or something, no matter how much previous data you have. I assume you never used extrapolation or improving chances with converging data?

It doesn't excuse the fact that MANY people, and I do mean many, do not feel 'bad' without any one of these (remember: sex is not the only pleasure available, not sure why YOU make it "so special and apart from others"). So, instead of saying "I need moderate levels of dopamine to feel normal, not 'useless' or 'bleak' or whatever", let's look at those which do NOT use it: after all, if they can feel normal without it, it only draws the conclusion that, just like any other 'drug' (alcohol included), you are addicted to it, since you require something that they don't (it's not like they are supernatural or something, in fact the REASON is KNOWN and I just explained it!).

By the way, your logic that pleasure is the same as a mental state (or mental emotion) totally falls apart. Google "Platonic relationship" for proof that some people have these 2 things separated -- which makes it pretty damn obvious that there are two DIFFERENT things. (yes, I'm talking about asexuals, again...)

Why do I stress out asexuals so much? Well it is pretty damn obvious -- you don't talk to a junkie without examples of someone who is NOT a junkie, do you? Well I tried, I have to admit, it wasn't really successful. Giving examples wasn't successful either, but it did make him more aware of the situation.

But you know what? I'm really done talking. What I said above is nothing new to what I said before, except that I used some more quotes/sources. It's obvious here I am talking, and you are saying "we can't know that", or "only some people do it" or stuff like that -- and I give CLEAR analogies with alcohol, drugs, and any other such dependent pleasure (even gave asexuals as an EXAMPLE of someone who doesn't drink/take drugs/whatever).

What more of an analogy do you want? Of course YOUR argument with "it's a whole different thing" is going to represent something -- no matter how many analogies I put there or how CLEAR the distinction is made (or how many examples I give or sources that are consistent to each other).

Although being female never has been easy, there always has been one clear advantage: longer life. But now a British geneticist is claiming that males, not females, are programmed to live longer. It is the relentless pursuit of sex that sends them to an early grave, he says.

In almost every species where one sex lives longer -- from worms to cats to humans -- females enjoy the longer life span. Scientists have assumed that this is due to a superior "constitutional endowment" -- meaning that females are simply designed to live longer. But work with worms has persuaded David Gems, a geneticist at University College in London, that scientists may be wrong: Males have the greater underlying longevity, he contends in research he described last week.

He reached this conclusion over the past year while studying the nematode worm, Caenorhabditis elegans. In this population there are very few males; most worms are hermaphrodites. But the hermaphrodites are "essentially females capable of making a small number of sperm for self-fertilization," Gems said in a recent interview. So, for the purposes of his research he treated them as female.

Gems saw that when he put male worms together they died in about 10 days, several days sooner than when they were left with females. But when he isolated individual male worms, they lived for 20 days. That surpassed the average female life span of 16 days. Isolating female worms had no effect on their life spans. Gems attributed the premature male deaths to too much activity: They were perpetually defending territory and competing for mates.

To test the idea further, Gems measured the life spans of worms with genetic mutations that made them less sexually active. These laid-back males lived even longer -- for 30 days. The same mutations did nothing to lengthen females' lives.

"Life span is limited by the rate of movement," Gems told a meeting of the Zoological Society of London. Exceeding a threshold of activity, he suggests, shortens a worm's life. Gems says that there is plenty of evidence that males of other species would live longer than females if it weren't for sexual activity.


Kraepelin says that continence is not injurious, and that its advantages in avoiding venereal infection are apparent. Gaertner also does not think that continence is injurious to young men. Gramer writes, "Sexual continence before marriage is not injurious. Finkler answered that sexual continence is not injurious to young men, but, on the contrary, is beneficial to body and mind. Lassar also thinks that sexual continence is not injurious to young men. Seiferts says that his experience teaches him that continence is not injurious. Gruber says "There is no reason why continence should be injurious." Jurgensen thinks that sexual continence per se is not injurious. Strumpell thinks that continence is indirectly useful in preventing venereal infection, and is not injurious. Hoffman considers sexual continence useful. Strumpell thinks that continence is indirectly useful in preventing venereal infection, and is surely not injurious. Tuczek is of the opinion that continence is beneficial. Prof. von Leyden says that, in his experience, he has never seen injurious consequences from continence. Hein says that in most men sexual continence is not injurious. Prof. von Grutzner writes that in his opinion sexual continence is almost never injurious. Prof. Meschede, during 47 years of psychiatric practice, has never seen a case of insanity caused by sexual continence. Weber writes that that continence is not injurious to young men, but, on the contrary, is useful. Hoche is of the opinion that sexual continence is not injurious to young men and does not lead to masturbation. Neisser writes: "Most of our young men could remain continent much longer than in the case nowadays." Aschffenberg writes: "Even those who are predisposed to nervousness do not suffer any harm from sexual continence if the impression is awakened in them that abstinence can never be injurious." Moll says: "At the present time, most medical men agree that sexual abstinence, in a general way, is not harmful." Hutchinson says: "The belief that the exercise of the sex function is necessary to the health of the male at any age is a pure delusion while before full maturity it is highly injurious."
So much for "sex is needed" or "abstinence leads to insecurity" -- heck ignore the asexuals, which are as direct analogy as a non-junkie is to a junkie. (as long as you are not addicted, it's actually healthy to not do it).

It is important to stress that the most important part is to overcome the critical period [of sexual addiction] -- until the body accommodates to asexual life, and then it will take no more effort. If you worry a sore all the time, it would never heal. If you leave it alone, it will soon be history. This is a physiological feature - the less sex you have, the less you want it (though this takes time to work). It is important, however, to be honest to yourself and not to feed lust with fantasies.

The following, quoted from Dr. R. W. Bernard's studies, A.B., M.A., Ph.D
HEALTH RESEARCH, MOKELUMNE HILL, CALIFORNIA 95245
According to this eminent English psychiatrist, the sexual orgasm has by its very nature a disintegrative, deteriorating influence on the organism; and the loss of energy it entails, especially when frequently repeated, results in apathy, lethargy and dementia. The tension of energy in the nervous system is thereby reduced to the lowest ebb, and, as a result, the manifestations of this energy are either wanting or are exhibited in a feeble and prefunctory manner. "The condition is one of dementia... there is want of mind, the inability to perform mental operations of even moderate difficulty, the dullness and slowness of feeling, the loss of all the higher emotions and of many of the lower ones also, that characterize dementia." There occurs "a general degradation of conduct, the loss of all the higher attributes of humanity, and the retention of all the lower and more animal characteristics. Such are the results of the indulgence of the sexual passion in great excess. When the indulgence is less excessive, the degradation is less profound, but in every case there is degradation, and in every case the deterioration is of the nature of dementia, that is to say, it is a manifestation of a deficiency in the amount of stored energy."
Yep definitely, I have no idea what I'm talking about -- and you are fully conscious! (ironically, actual junkies (no, really, actual ones who are deep into it) also tell me that all the time, can you believe that?)
That's not silecing of consciousness for you?

May not the deep unconsciousness that follows sexual activity be due to withdrawals of lipoids from the brain by the sexual orgasm, producing results similar to those that follow the administration of an anesthetic, which likewise withdraws lipoids from this organ?

Since both the brain and the sex organs extract identical substances from the blood (lecithin, cholesterol, etc.), this would mean that there exists a chemical antagonism between them since increased activity of the latter means decreased nutrition of the former. The more lipoids that the sex glands withdraw from the blood, the less is available to the brain. This is confirmed by the observation of Darwin that the brain of rabbits diminishes in size under domestication. It is well known that domesticated animals have more frequent estrual periods and reproductive activity than wild ones. The diminished size of the brain in the domesticated species is associated with greater sexual activity and resulting withdrawal of brain lipoids.

These considerations indicate that all loss of seminal lipoids, whether through coitus, masturbation or nocturnal emissions, are at the expense of the brain: and this effect is most detrimental during childhood and before maturity, when the brain is in the process of growth. Chakraberty, discussing the adverse effect of seminal losses upon the brain, writes: "The loss of concentration of lecithin and phosphates becomes a serious drain on the nervous system. Lecithin and phosphates are the principal components in the structure of the brain."

Continence results in a greater supply of lecithin, cholester(?) and phosphates in the blood, and consequently in the brain. Brown-Sequard has shown that testicular secretions increase nerve and brain vitality. Chakraberty remarks that the eating of desiccated testicles has a stimulating effect on the central nervous system "due to the nucleo-albumins, lecithin and phosphorus in which they are so rich, and which are also prominent constituents of nervous tissues." (However, there is no need to eat desiccated testicles when each individual can conserve and resorb the valuable secretions of his own). According to Fischer, the sex glands may be considered as reservoirs of lipoids, which they release into the blood to energize the brain. And conversely, through external emission, they can withdraw lipoids from the blood, and thus indirectly from the brain.

What do you understand from the above? I think you're pretty much aware, drawing stuff the CONSCIOUS brains needs is similar to anaesthesic: you'll pass out if it goes too far. I don't have to explain this, you can just draw conclusions yourself from the above text.

During this tumult and after the crisis, the general state of the patient conforms in every manner to that of the genital system. Thus the face reddens, the neck swells, the veins become filled, the skin now burning and now moistened with sweat, the heart beats with rapidity. In fact, there is a state of fever which almost justifies us in placing the act of venery among diseases. At the same time the nervous centers, the cerebrum, the cerebellum and the spinal cord experience a very powerful impression. As the state progresses, consciousness is lost, and the subject is, at it were, in a state of delirium. The will is suspended, and the muscles are not controlled by it, but by the nerve centers which are so much irritated. The trunk and limbs are agitated by involuntary motions and chills. The disturbance increases until the crisis arrives, when the convulsions affect the genital system; a fit of epilepsy as it were ensues; the sight becomes dim; the trunk stiffens and neck is thrown back; and finally this state might be regarded as a violent access of disease if the beginning and end of it were not known.
I suppose that means you're fully conscious for you? Obviously if your will is 'suspended', that means it is fully active.

No reason to tell me that. Junkies tell me all the time they're not hallucinating, drunk people tell me all the time they aren't drunk -- heck everyone says they're fully conscious!

I'm tired of digging, I waste too much time (that publication of Dr. Bernard is alone, extremely long) on this so sorry for cutting it here (I'm pretty sure you're bored by this point anyway, can't blame you)

Quote:
The body is not the enemy of the mind
To end this, and to what it is said above, yes it is -- when it deprives the mind (aka conscious brain) of stuff to make it 'silenced' and possibly generates other stuff or gives it to the reward part.
Quote:
If anything, than it's the MIND tht ruins the body in case of drug addiction, illnesses and mental disorders, not the other way round. It's the mind that let's the body go to waste, become fat, lazy and ill. THE MIND.
You are partly right, after all, the reason someone "can't live" without sex is because of the mind that it grew addicted to it -- asexuals have no problem because they are NOT having not ever "feed off" their instincts. Like I have explained above, feeding an instinct makes it more powerful and harder to pull off.

Quote:
We know a wee bit is not enough.
Apparently it is, considering the impressive feats we've done with artificial intelligence, or genetic programming.

See this simple (but cool) genetic example. Evolve the "car"
____________
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 11, 2009 02:10 AM

Quote:
Why? For one we do know that some minor forms of pleasure (and pain) are given straight by sensors, which makes them extremely similar, but opposites.
Because pain is something physical, whereas pleasure is something emotional - just like happiness or depression.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 11, 2009 02:13 AM

That's your definition? Because I said the exact opposite.
What the hell is 'physical'? You mean, mental and body states?

I already said that. Happiness is a mental state, pleasure is a body state (or in your case, 'physical').

Mental =/= the whole brain. Mental = the CONSCIOUS part brain (for example, the bit above the 'primitive' brain as outlined in my previous quotes of sources, previous post).
____________
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 11, 2009 02:55 AM

Quote:
Mental =/= the whole brain. Mental = the CONSCIOUS part brain (for example, the bit above the 'primitive' brain as outlined in my previous quotes of sources, previous post).
Well, that's new. By that definition, then, it's not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 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 11, 2009 05:51 AM

*rubs chin*

its strangely satisfying that after all this rather pointless debate full of strawmen, quote-wars and unfounded arguments, the best response to TheDeath's clueless rant is

"you need to get laid"
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 11, 2009 09:29 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 11:27, 11 Feb 2009.

Quote:
Quote:

Researchers have long known that the body can activate its own form of pain relief in response to painful stimuli. Now, UC San Francisco investigators have determined that, in rats, this long-lasting relief is produced by the brain's "reward" pathway -- the neural circuitry activated by drugs of abuse.
Man, I cited this myself in my last post - but look at the bold print. That's wrong and biassed. It's no abuse. The body is a system. Pain has purposes. Too much of it and those purposes can't be fulfilled. So of course the body has a way to stop or damp the pain. The difference is that the stuff is tailor-made for the purpose. That's why there's nothing wrong with it.

@JJ:
Quote:
Death, we know nothing of that sort. We don't KNOW what Note that I do not disagree entirely with what you said: what these neural networks do is model the instincts, the subconscious and the unconscious, not the "reason" or the CONSCIOUSNESS (precisely PROVING how they are distinct, case closed). For example, we pretty much know that the cerebellum (which is unconscious) is tied with the motor functions. I don't think it's really impossible to make a computer chip that does the same, now is it? By any sense of the word (perfect example above)...

Also remember this thing was made by a single guy, and computers aren't powerful enough to simulate animal behavior in REAL TIME -- but you can simulate the behavior of a not-very-complex animal (mostly one that doesn't have a conscious at all), let's say 1 second of its life, with 1 hour of processing code. Yes, it's slow as hell on today's computers, but it's possible.
You are making the usual mistake. Modelling is not understanding. Ptolemeius made a perfect model of the planets and the sun orbiting the Earth that was a brilliant success in terms of accuracy when it came to computing where a planet would be at a certain time. However, it was fundamentally and spectacularly WRONG. Computers have one decisive mistake: they are unable to work with irrational numbers and have to circumvent that "hole".
It's strange that a wonder of modern genius would need a couple thousand times the processing code of that of an animal, isn't it? Up to this point they are just trying and testing - nothing to base anything upon.

Quote:
You can either prove something or not.
FILLING OUT THE GAPS ON ASSUMPTIONS IS RELIGION!
You're joking right? You see, science never proves anything.

If it proved something as real, then it means that thing will never change. What happens when a theory never changes or is infallible? You have religion.

Science NEVER equals truth. NEVER EVER EVER. Simple logic:

Truth NEVER changes.
Science MUST change. If science doesn't change, it's a religion.

Quote:
No more questions, your honor.
I didn't say that, I said it's a very high probability. Yes, i did say maybe, after all everything is "maybe" with different chances of being true. There is no absolute truth in science. That's stuff reserved for religion so basically what you're requesting of me now, is to argue with your religion.
You are mistaking science with speculation, since you are forgetting the important things.
a) a theory must be consistent with the facts; what you call theory is not
b) a theory must be verifiable; it is not
c) a theory must make predictions; yours does not.
You speak of high probability, but there is no probability at all since your basics are already wrong.
Quote:

But what's interesting is that I provided an analogy: if we can make drugs (and we can) that exercise the muscles, which previous skeptics said it's impossible, couldn't we make ones that exercise/simulate the stuff happening when we sleep? If you ask me, those drugs that exercise the muscles considerably improved the chances of that happening. Yes it's still a MAYBE, god dammit EVERYTHING is a maybe (maybe the atoms don't even exist and we live in a virtual world? eh?).
This is proving the absurdity of your claims: you would celebrate the development of a DRUG to shorten sleep while you claim that the "drugging" the body does whe  having sex is mind-control?
Quote:

You know what would have been the point if Newton said "Maybe my theories are not correct"? Yes maybe they weren't (and they aren't) but that doesn't make them worthless for goodness' sake! Especially not in that period.
Oh, now we are comparing with Newton, are we? Shall I explain it to you in detail again? Newton's theories not only were in agreement with ALL the known facts, it could be verified by experiment AND it allowed predictions that were all true.

What you call a theory is none, since it doesn't. You may have read a bit about how this and that is supposedly working on this or that, but you know nothing about addiction. There is the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of the people is not in any way ADDICTED to sex. The interesting thing is, that there ARE some who ARE addicted to it in one way or another - which is no surprise, actually, since you can be addicted to basically everything, but for sex there is
a) no bodily habit-forming which would lead to a bodily withdrawal
b) no "addiction" as in mental dependance leading to the typical behaviour of the addicted.
The same thing is true for sugar, for example. Most people like a sweet, but aren't addicted to sugar. Some are, though.
Note, though, that addiction has nothing to do with the stuff you are addicted to, but only with the reaction of a person's mind on the effect the stuff has SUBJECTIVELY (and that's true not only for substances).


Quote:

Your primitive brain accomplishes these goals of more progeny and promiscuity...
And that's where I stop reading. The goals of more progeny and promiscuity? That doesn't sound like an unbiassed scientific endeavour.
You could have saved all these quotes for a simple reason, I'm trying to explain to you.
Every organism, and the human as well, who is what we are talking about, is "constructed" in a certain way, and this "way" is that with everything there is a "too much". A limit of what body and mind can take. "Stress", whether mentally or bodily is bad for the organism if it's too much and is bad for the organism if there is none at all. If there is too much of it, the effort for the stressed parts becomes so great that permenent damage will occur. If there is none at all the organism will lose the ability to cope with any.
As an example, if you drink one glas of red wine each day, not more, not less, some fools may call you an alcoholic, but the docs will tell you that the effect on your heart is fine, while the amount is not enough to damage wither your liver or your brain. However, drink a bottle every day, and it's only a question of time until the damage occurs.
Now compare this quote of yours (which is complete nonsense, because of the use of words like "bleak" and "craving", a clear indication of the camp this "scientist" is in and his ideology):
Quote:
Both low dopamine and high prolactin make your world look bleak -- and increase your craving for better sex or new partners who would raise your dopamine levels (and set you on another addictive cycle of highs and lows). Together these neurochemicals probably account for the "end of the honeymoon," which nearly all couples experience within a year of marriage.
with this one (and note that the stuff around it is nonsense yet again; what you have there is a separate reservoir of lipoids, A SEPARATE one, that is not stealing the brain anything USUALLY; but it MIGHT, under certain circumstances):
Quote:
According to Fischer, the sex glands may be considered as reservoirs of lipoids, which they release into the blood to energize the brain. And conversely, through external emission, they can withdraw lipoids from the blood, and thus indirectly from the brain

Putting both of these quotes together, allows to view things in context: as with all things the human body isn't meant to keep up an extraordinarily high rate of activity of any specific thing, since that would have a detrimental effect on the overall health. As with everything, a "normal" (I use this word here in connection with frequency; how high that frequency is, is not so difficult to see and has something to do with life expectancy of sperms, but that's only common sense at work, not scientific reason) sexual activity will obviously NOT rob the brain of anything, while the "end of the honeymoon" as this idiot is cynically calling it, is just the natural adjustment to the fact that you cannot have sex 8 hours a day without suffering severe damage due to too much stress for certain parts of the organism.

There is basically no activity at all that is not detrimental to health, longevity or anything else if you overdo it, and what most of those jerks you quoted do, is exactly that:
So how about this scientific proof then. We know what happens when we eat; the digestive circuit of the body starts to become active, doing its work, putting a strain onto the body which we feel when too late in the evening we ear something difficult to digest. It puts a strain onto your system. So it's quote clear that constantly eating things that are difficult to digest AND overdoing the eating thing will cause desease and early death. ADDITIONALLY we know about EATING-addiction, and look at how many fat people are around.
So stop eating. It's a dangerous thing to do. Eating a delicious thing makes your pleasure center work overtime. Bad thing. Just stop it. You don't need to. Intravenous feed is fine.

Right. Thing one: the people you quote are BIASSED. They do their research with a certain goal in mind with the aim to support a certain ideology. You should be a bit more critical in your thinking.
Thing two: Humans are not made for excess. Overdoing things has detrimental effects, no matter what it is that you overdo. Stating the obvious proves nothing.

Basically it's the MIND that is always overdoing it, don't you see that? It's the disordered MIND which may develop an addiction to anything and to sex as well. It's the misguided MIND that overdoes it the other way, damning perfectly natural things we are well equipped to do having profoundly bad effects until today. Whether rats press a lever until they die or not is completely irrelevant. We know about research about drug effects on animals for a long time. Best known would be the drugs on spiders experiment. Messiest net is done after use of caffein...
Species react different on specific drugs.

Of course I saved the best for last, your source, aka. the eminent and late Dr. Bernard (1901-1965). A short biography:
Dr. Raymond Bernard was born Walter Seigmeister in 1901 to a family of Russian non-practising Jews in New York City. His father was a doctor which gave him an early interest in health. As a young man he became deeply interested in the works of the Theosophists and Rudolph Steiner's Anthropo- sophists, especially those works relating to Atlantis and Lemuria.

His B.A. was from Columbia University in 1924, and his M.A. and Ph.D were in education -- from New York University (in 1930 and 1932 respectively). His Ph.D. dissertation was, "Theory and Practice of Dr. Rudolf Steiner's Pedagogy."

His final and most popular book was the "The Hollow Earth." He died of pneumonia on September 10, 1965, while searching the tunnel openings to the interior of the Earth, in South America. He was an individual who was not afraid to explore well beyond the confines of the `establishment's convention', and the spirit of his controversial research lives on....


A complete list of his publishings can be found here:
http://www.ourhollowearth.com/Bernard/WorksList.htm

The list is pretty interesting, to say the least, and has the advantage of giving short summaries of the content. Here is an example:

HERBAL ELIXIRS OF LIFE - By Dr. Bernard. Rejuvenating Herbs of the Far East believed by Orientals to Preserve Youth, Ward Off Old Age and Prolong Life, claims the author.

Or this one:

MYSTERIES OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION- By Dr. Bernard. Scientific Evidence that a Higher Parthenogentic Method of Human Fertilization Exists by which a Super Race may be created - a Method Distinct from and Superior to the Animal Method, by which Nineteen Virgin Mothers in England produced children a few years ago, as confirmed by investigations by a group of English physicians and accepted by the British Medical Association as authentic cases of Human Parthenogenesis or Virgin Birth. ... so says the author. He claims what these women can do - any woman can do.

But his pet project was "the hollow Earth", of course, but I don't want to spoil the fun looking things up. Enjoy.


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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 11, 2009 08:34 PM

@mvass: how could you possibly say it is not physical when some forms of pleasure are derived directly from senses or doing PHYSICAL actions? (drinking alcohol and taking drugs is one of them as well...)

It's not like you are happy when you see someone or defeat that last boss in the game. You're not happy in the latter case because you type at the keyboard but because of a psychological/mental satisfaction that you made out of that game (which is just pixels...). How can you not see the immediate difference?

What the hell? If you think it's the same as happiness, then you don't need ANY physical stuff (you can have physical stuff in happiness, but that's not the thing that makes it a mental state). Unfortunately that's not the case with pleasure. ANY kind of pleasure.

@Lith:
Quote:
its strangely satisfying that after all this rather pointless debate full of strawmen, quote-wars and unfounded arguments, the best response to TheDeath's clueless rant is

"you need to get laid"
What do you think this is? You're like a troll. I have a clueless rant? Dude look in the mirror. Unfounded arguments? Where's the foundation to that "best response" of yours? It's always so 'satisfying' (or rather, disturbing if the entire Earth population is like sheep ) to see people who take something for granted and not being able to reply properly when someone challenges that -- apart from JJ in this thread (mvass posts way too few to count, I don't blame him ). You know, like challenging religion of sorts.

Thanks for teaching me that the best response to atheists is: "Dude, you need to pray to Jesus and seek salvation!"


BTW, I really know some junkies that tell me all the time to get a dose myself when I challenge that or whatever. What do you think makes you special when you tell me that? Wait for your turn.


@JJ:
Quote:
You are mistaking science with speculation, since you are forgetting the important things.
a) a theory must be consistent with the facts; what you call theory is not
b) a theory must be verifiable; it is not
c) a theory must make predictions; yours does not.
You speak of high probability, but there is no probability at all since your basics are already wrong.
a) FACT is, a drug has been released to exercise muscles. We know some facts about sleep. Try to extrapolate this data for the "future" (i.e predict) if the chances of getting a drug for sleep is possible or not. (by the way, this was 'speculation' too some decades back)

b) Of course it is, you can already see sleeping drugs that, unfortunately, damage your health. ANY research goes through failures, otherwise it wouldn't be called research. No, it is not GUARANTEED, but the probabilities increase, in my opinion, based on the prior data over the years...

c) Prediction? You're talking about physical theories, while I'm talking about biology Of course you don't make predictions or 'theories' with, let's say, antibiotics. In fact most of them are made through trial and error.

Quote:
This is proving the absurdity of your claims: you would celebrate the development of a DRUG to shorten sleep while you claim that the "drugging" the body does whe  having sex is mind-control?
Short story: Drugs aren't bad. Pleasure is. (do you realize how many "drugs" are used in medicine for example anyway?)

A bit more detailed: this drug, first of all, doesn't make you dependent on it -- sure, if you don't get the dose, you'll NEED sleep, but at least you aren't going to need the dose to satisfy your dopamine levels, because this drug shouldn't give you any pleasure. No pleasure = no addiction.

Pleasure is the bad thing. Dopamine levels, etc... It is what links ALL of alcohol, drugs, sex, etc... together (and I'm speaking again, about 'physical' pleasures, see above with mvass; aka 'external' neurochemicals, not those from psychic/mental/whatever you wanna call it).

Quote:
What you call a theory is none, since it doesn't. You may have read a bit about how this and that is supposedly working on this or that, but you know nothing about addiction. There is the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of the people is not in any way ADDICTED to sex. The interesting thing is, that there ARE some who ARE addicted to it in one way or another - which is no surprise, actually, since you can be addicted to basically everything, but for sex there is
a) no bodily habit-forming which would lead to a bodily withdrawal
b) no "addiction" as in mental dependance leading to the typical behaviour of the addicted.
The same thing is true for sugar, for example. Most people like a sweet, but aren't addicted to sugar. Some are, though.
Note, though, that addiction has nothing to do with the stuff you are addicted to, but only with the reaction of a person's mind on the effect the stuff has SUBJECTIVELY (and that's true not only for substances).
Did you read the articles I cited? (no, not Dr. only Bernard's)

Short quote: Dopamine is highly addictive.

Why do you draw something "special" into sex? Like saying "alcohol is something different", "drugs are different", just because they have different names? Look at it scientifically and break it down at to what effect they all make.

It is pleasure, alright? This thread should have been named "pleasure and drugs" or "sex, pleasure and drugs" because I swear this isn't going anywhere as long as I keep pointing out this simple thing you always seem to miss and go on how "sex is not addictive". Where does that lead to, seriously? Claims usually don't lead into bright places

PLEASURE is addictive, like any instinct, only that this one makes you feel good. Instincts, like muscles or ANYTHING else for that matter (even your brain, if you heard of 'brain exercise'), when "exercised" aka USED, tend to grow more powerful and more intense. This means next time it'll be harder to pull off. This is as close to addiction as it can get.

See? I don't even talk about sex, specifically. Sex is just something that HAPPENS to be included in this grand scheme of things, along with drugs, alcohol, and even smoking (though to less extent might I add). I'd really like if you could start to be looking more at the "building blocks" of all of them (PLEASURE), rather than taking sex as something special and oh-so-apart from the others.

Quote:
And that's where I stop reading. The goals of more progeny and promiscuity? That doesn't sound like an unbiassed scientific endeavour.
I'll quote just this bit so as to cut the amount but reply to all the stuff you said after it here.

I have a question for you. Do you ever know how these experiments are first made on animals and the observations lead to conclusions like that? Ever looked at rats in a cage, for example, some with EEE along with females, even in their breeding period, and observed what happened? What happens after you forcefully take out the EEE, for example?

Yes yes, you make humans look "special" and "more advanced" or have sexual functions "for different purposes" or somesuch. If you ask me, this is biased, but let's not get there... Or rather, as some unknown guy I once saw put it, "Today fish, tomorrow monkeys [regarding experiments]. No matter how many evidence we have and is consistent even across different species, people are still going to say humans are different. Is it because we can't make consistent experiments on them and they know that? Why cling on hopeless ideas?"

JJ, your analogy with eating is closer than you think, but note that the organism REQUIRES eating for energy. Eating does accomplish SOMETHING. Your analogy would only be valid if you would puke out what you ate, in effect accomplishing NOTHING, except for taste/pleasure. Seriously, please pay attention. This is like the 10th time I'm posting this.

If you have sex for reproduction, then it's not going to be a waste anymore. The drain on your brain is JUSTIFIED, because there's no other way (let's say, you can't have artificial... well maybe yet anyway, which could be proven more efficient, I said could, nothing is certain).

Now getting on what you said about the mind, you seem to miss the point of addiction or addictive instincts. Your rational/conscious brain sits somewhere above the 'primitive' brain (the one which deals with the reward). The MIND which you talk about, is the rational/conscious one. Yes, this mind CAN do nasty things, such as depriving itself of oxygen (easiest and most straightforward: hold your breath ), or adjusting the release of neurochemicals (aka FIRE UP the instincts, so to speak, "boot" them, to use computer speech). The problem here, as I have outlined previously, is that none of this would be possible without the damn instincts. Yes the mind can grow addicted to instincts -- in fact, it's the mind that EXERCISES an instinct (you can oppose it extremely easy at first, for example, if you are not yet addicted). The MIND exercises the muscles too. But you see, once you are a strong fella it's difficult to "drop them". The stronger you are, the harder it is and more effort required (especially mentally) to drop the stuff you exercised. Addiction falls in the same boat.


And who cares that different drugs act different on other animals? The point is the damn BASIC BUILDING BLOCK of all of them: PLEASURE and the chemicals (and frequencies) associated with most forms of it. Can you FOCUS on THAT?

It's IRRELEVANT whether something else fires up different neurochemicals in different species as long as the respective chemical can MATCH another chemical found in another species.



As for Dr. Bernard's articles, I googled and actually found this which is the text I was referring to. If you bother to read it, it cites different researchers on the same issues where applicable.

But I suppose that confirming some of the stuff Bernard said even recently isn't enough, even for other sources... all are biased!
____________
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 0.8006 seconds