|
| Thread: Love, Sex and Evolved Monkeys |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
posted May 04, 2009 03:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am not specifically talking about sex only, I am against pleasure
Should I understand it like you are refusing your favorite meal because it is enjoyable and thus bad?
____________
Result matters
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 04, 2009 08:04 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:04, 04 May 2009.
|
@DoomForge
Quote:
Cor: Yeah, love and physiology are very tightly connected. I wouldn't call phenylalanine induced euphoria "love" though. For me, it's the "fascination" - teen fascination especially.
Btw I missed this. I think you interpreted what I originally wrote backwards. I wasn't speaking about physiology influencing love, but love influencing physiology. I meant that people in love generally have lower stress and all the things that go with good mental health. Just wanted to clarify that. (Though I agree - I don't think one should mistake hormone-induced attraction for love.)
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2009 09:38 AM |
|
|
Ah. Well, I agree anyway, judging by what people in real love say - not the teens, but people who lived with each other for like 30+ years and still care for each other. They often say how great and motivating the feeling is.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 05, 2009 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A human is a human, not a mind with crap around. We may suffer pain from the body, and we may suffer pain from the mind. And we may enjoy pleasure from the body and we may enjoy pleasure from the mind.
There is a time for everything.
Yes, I know. But humans evolve, and not just by natural selection (that's dead for our species since the dawn of medicine). Natural selection is only one step in the huge scheme of evolution.
Quote:
Oh, and matric is just a STORY, in case you didn't notice.
Yes, but the story is backed up by philosophy and human psychology. I mean, if I wrote it, or some philosopher wrote it, would it make it more "real"? (I'm not even sure, maybe they even hired a philosopher/psychologist for it...  )
Quote:
What a bizarre thing to oppose. :confused: Maybe that should go into mvass's legendary quotes thread. 
Indeed, it may be bizarre now, but I think if people focused less on pleasure (and less addicted to it) they would start to see the point in more things than they would ignore or set as 'bland' otherwise (explained before). Like happiness or love.
Happiness is complex, result of many things that an individual shapes with his mind. Some like challenges, others like let's say music, others like "fun games". Either way all these things are a mental product, you don't even need a brain scan to see that (it is obvious that they are 'shaped' up by an individual, rather than hard-wired like pleasure or pain, and it is our minds that we can shape).
Quote:
I disagree. Art isn't most about creativity - it's about expression. Sex (and more specifically, sexual repression) has been a major social driving force for society, and art has been a medium of the expression of sexual themes since humans started walking on two legs.
Yes, I think at this point I have to enumerate the two types of art. The art of imitation, and the one of creativity. 'Expression' can fall in both. Expression, when it is your body's actions that are expressed (i.e sexual lust) not a product of your brain (i.e your favorite taste in X, which is obviously not hardwired in humans), falls into imitation -- you actually imitate what the body tells you to, or you can imitate reality. Ok this is kinda off topic, sorry.
Quote:
Should I understand it like you are refusing your favorite meal because it is enjoyable and thus bad?
If the sole purpose behind the food was taste, or rather, if the TASTE was the END IN ITSELF (alone, not 'tradition' or anything, but just... taste), then OF COURSE. I mean, that would be like eating something and then puking it (suppose puking it is not negative, you feel normal).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 07:24 AM |
|
|
Death, we had this discussion already, and you are still as wrong as then, because your definitions and starting claims are not right.
Every love, every care - without sex - takes something like being near to each other and having some sort of natural bodily contact, that has something to do with the fact that every human had that contact when growing in the womb and later on when fed (with breast-feeding it being more intense). If you are together with someone, sharing your life and so on, you WANT that nearness and togetherness because of that. Moreover it's necessary for the trust needed to really make a child with another person - you can't just be like two strangers, having had sex once or twice in your life to never touch again. That's just stupid.
Sex is, thankfully, so much more than just procreation OR pleasure, and that's supported by all scientific research done about it. Addiction to sex/pleasure is something else completely.
We have discussed addiction as well, by the way, and as far as I remember you had problems with your definitions there as well. It's fine when you cling to certain points of view, but they should be free of contradictions, at least, otherwise they are just beliefs propagated by people wearing a blindfold.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 07:29 AM |
|
|
Another love & sex thread.
Ok lets get it straight.
Every SPECIES love sex.
They love it because it's satisfying.
We cant have an evolution with out it.
It's a turn on.
Every species does it because that is how we produce.
Plus it is a known fact that women want it more then men
Yes that even goes for Mytical
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 03:38 PM |
|
|
@Death
I'm not sure of ANY human action that doesn't have pleasure as its ultimate motivation. Either directly or indirectly, is anything a human does NOT motived by pleasure? EVERY human action contributes to waste. So... I just don't get this point of view of yours.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 03:45 PM |
|
|
Don't get him started, yet again! 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 03:47 PM |
|
|
Alright, I'm just still trying to wrap my head around it.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 10:34 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:37, 06 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Every love, every care - without sex - takes something like being near to each other and having some sort of natural bodily contact, that has something to do with the fact that every human had that contact when growing in the womb and later on when fed (with breast-feeding it being more intense). If you are together with someone, sharing your life and so on, you WANT that nearness and togetherness because of that. Moreover it's necessary for the trust needed to really make a child with another person - you can't just be like two strangers, having had sex once or twice in your life to never touch again. That's just stupid.
Love doesn't require "touching". There are people who love each other even if they are in different countries (let's say, for example, because of business/work).
What about soldiers? Do they not love their wives when they are in the battlefield? Or their children? Or the other way around? Because they don't "touch"?
What if they're dead? You stop loving them? After all, you'll never touch them EVER again.
This is just wrong. I'd say, true love comes ONLY if you satisfy those criteria. If you don't, or if you forget about them once dead... sorry but that is precisely the under-level of love I was talking about, why pleasure or other things like that may make it of smaller value.
@Corribus: Many things. You may think that everyone is greedy, materialistic, or plain wants selfish power and doesn't care for anything else once he feels well, but that's not true. Some people do indeed however have pleasure as their ultimate goal, but those are either the selfish bastards, junkies, or things like that.
MOST human actions have happiness as the end in itself, or as mvass puts it, "emotional benefits". These are different than pleasure because it is a mental product/activity. You don't even need a brain scan to see that.
Since this 'varies' from person to person according to how their BRAINS/MINDS developed (for example, someone may like rap, another may like rock), which is totally different than pleasure, which is usually triggered by flesh substances into the brain (or external substances, in the case of drugs or beer or whatever), which are hard-wired in almost everyone (except those which suffer from diseases or which simply have different genetics due to mutations -- like asexuals).
The idea behind my point of view is that pleasure is bad and it is a waste compared to the alternative, which are DIRECT mental products/activities as I have outlined. (so without it, people could focus more on that instead). Love is complex but I believe it falls under the same category (latter one, not pleasure).
So for on topic I would say (replacing pleasure with sex, as per this topic): sex is bad. Without it, people would focus more on love instead, if not anything else (of course I only included 'sex' and 'love' as the possibilities as per topic, but that's narrowminded of course).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
MOST human actions have happiness as the end in itself, or as mvass puts it, "emotional benefits". These are different than pleasure because it is a mental product/activity.
The only things that are different are intensity and duration.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 10:48 PM |
|
|
Which MVass has neither of
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 10:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The only things that are different are intensity and duration.
And that one is mental and the other is... well... not mental.
Let me make this easier for you to imagine, and after that I'll use a computer analogy (don't laugh, it's very similar, and it will be even more once we get AIs).
The shape of your body, I mean in genetics (not fitness), is not mental product obviously. Neither is that you have 5 fingers on each hand. What about learning programming instead of, let's say, literature? (and obviously let's say it's your 'passion'). Can you see the difference? There is an extremely big difference, and it is ESSENTIAL in AI programming. So yeah, it's more "real" than you think.
Without that essential difference we would basically not be able to make real self-aware AIs. Without that difference, our TODAY's computers would be classified as AIs.
There's a notion in computers, it's called read-only, or ROM for the storage medium. No computer can be self-aware with ROMs, EVER. You need "mental goals", which is self-programming, which means you need something writeable, not hardwired/genetics. Something like the mind, you know?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 11:16 PM |
|
|
But Deathboy, Love gives you as much pleasure as sex does. So, I'm not sure I see the distinction.
And, I'm not sure there would be love without sex.
I guess this thread has really gone a different direction than I had initially anticipated.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 11:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But Deathboy, Love gives you as much pleasure as sex does. So, I'm not sure I see the distinction.
And, I'm not sure there would be love without sex.
I think you're using the wrong definition of love then.
How much pleasure does sacrifice give you? You know they say, you don't fully love someone until you're prepared to sacrifice for them, right?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 11:34 PM |
|
|
Death:
Quote:
And that one is mental and the other is... well... not mental.
Both of them are both mental and non-mental. Both are a mental response to outside stimuli.
Quote:
How much pleasure does sacrifice give you? You know they say, you don't fully love someone until you're prepared to sacrifice for them, right?
Life sacrifice is an inertial instinctive thing. As for sacrifice - if you love someone, your sacrifices will yield greater benefits - so they're not really sacrifices, are they?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Both of them are both mental and non-mental. Both are a mental response to outside stimuli.
Both are atoms.
Everything is atoms.
There's no "humans", just a collection of atoms.
There's no pleasure, no emotion, no thinking, no love, no nothing. Just atoms moving around.
...
might be true, but what's the point?
Quote:
Life sacrifice is an inertial instinctive thing. As for sacrifice - if you love someone, your sacrifices will yield greater benefits - so they're not really sacrifices, are they?
I don't get it. If you say "love is a pleasure, like sex", then how can sacrifice be a 'greater pleasure'? (not benefit, because we're talking about the (incorrect) assumption that love is pleasure)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There's no "humans", just a collection of atoms.
Marcolevel vs. microlevel difference. Just like free will.
Quote:
If you say "love is a pleasure, like sex", then how can sacrifice be a 'greater pleasure'?
It's not a greater pleasure. It's the false instinctive expectation of a greater pleasure.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 06, 2009 11:52 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:53, 06 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Marcolevel vs. microlevel difference. Just like free will.
Yes and like I said. What's your point? That whole thing is subjective. For example, there is a clear difference in computers between ROM and write-able memory. But they are both atoms at the quantum level. Doesn't mean that a sane person would not use the aforementioned terms.
Quote:
It's not a greater pleasure. It's the false instinctive expectation of a greater pleasure.
What do you mean the false instinctive expectation of a greater pleasure?
When someone asks you "why do you want to sacrifice for X?" and you reply "because I love him/her", you ALREADY LOVE him/her. It's not like you expect LATER 'false' love or anything like that lol.
So to sum up, replacing love with pleasure, this is how your statement looks like:
"It's not greater pleasure. It's the pleasure of a greater pleasure."
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 12:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What's your point?
The point is that your distinction makes no sense to me.
Quote:
"It's not greater pleasure. It's the pleasure of a greater pleasure."
Nope. "It's not greater pleasure. It's the false expectation of a greater pleasure." If you love x and are willing to sacrifice for her/him, then (whether rationally or irrationally) you expect the sacrifice to bring you more pleasure than abstaining from sacrifice. If you turn out to be right - then it wasn't really a sacrifice, was it? If you turn out to be wrong, then it was. But if you are guaranteed to turn out to be wrong (such as in the case of life sacrifice), then it's a false expectation.
"Why do I sacrifice for x? Because I love x, and it brings me pleasure to sacrifice for x, so I'm not really sacrificing."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
