An insight on relations.

[Baron Morte]

(all the relations i explain here are sexual/passion/love)
since my most recent failed romance ive been wondering on the lines of "why?"
I am left wondering if it is worthy, in terms of money, time, personal satisfaction, the emotional cost, etc.
I am a pragmatic man per se. Some may think it is cheap - and it is - but i like to think im a logical bloke. So I eat at home or in some cheap place, because i am going to be alive anyways, and the extra money i get i can use to buy things that last. Why would I waste money on something that will make me happy only as long as the meal goes? I rather waste my money or something that i can actually "own".

But relationships are something that you are, not something that you own. I used to think that there were lots of benefits, like learning things about it. But i think its not the case, the only things i learned was to be more selfish, self absorbed and deceitful.
Not only this, but i see this people who have been in a relationship for as long as 5 years, and still they make basic mistakes which anyone with good sense would know its not a decent move. Everyone is born with all the skills they need to be in one.

Fact is that the emotional bit of such relations is also tricky and specially dangerous. For reasons you all know, there are the games, the attempts to control the relation, its like an undeclared war all the time. The sexual bit is a tad overrated,as most of you know. Its more like a drug, that you get addicted to, and is something that you "need" so that you can feel the same way. Its not something that leave you all high and full of peace. Quite the contrary.

And the emotional expends are also high, its a bill that its colected with absurd interests by the end of the relation.

I see relationships as something that you have to pay very highly, to have a doubtfull return. I am used to having 4-5 friends in my hometown. I have one friend that has ten times more friends, and he is constantly in touch with them. To my surprise, sometimes he feels lonely and uneasy with them. I Feel like that very rarely, despite the obvious disparities in social skills. This shows how peope just get used to things the way they are, and no longer feel bad for such condition.
I am sure that there are people outhere having sex 24/7 since they were teens, and my guess is that they are as happy as I am.

This way, given the extreme expensiveness of relations, I am beggining to question if relations are any good. Its like having a sports car. No doubt that its nice to ride one once in a while, but are you ready to cover the expenses?
Monetarelly speaking, there are people who can, and people who cant. Emotionally speaking, everybody has almost the same ammount to spare.


In short, television, marketing, ads, they all try to sell relations as that ethereal thing, that will lead us from evil to heaven, but the fact is that it is more close to having a speedboat, or a new computer.

[Dante Hicks]

It's not that relationships (or even friendships for that matter) are overrated it's that people look for the wrong things in them.

Most people's basic philosophy seems to be : Hey, I'm fundamentally unhappy with myself. I'll find someone whose also unhappy with themselves and we can get together and bake all our neuroses together. It's bound to end well!

Your analogy with a sports-car is perhaps apt, but it's not necessarily true that everyone has the same to "spare". Some people (for whatever reason) seem a lot more needy than others, others are capable of giving a lot more.

From experience, if you're comfortable with yourself, then all will be well. Sure, there are times when people around you can help you out, but if you can't generally stand on your own two feet (emotionally) then regardless how many friends you got, or people kissing your arse, or sucking your dick for that matter, you'll probably be unhappy.

[Baron Morte]

Well, as I pointed out in the start of the text, friendship is absolutely different. I think it is so because friendship is logical, while sex/love are so blinding with all these hormones and chemical things acting in one's brain that its mostly illogical. There is no sense, there is no way of measuring feelings and stuff.. its like dealing with a drug addict. Everything loses importance in comparison to be with the one you love/to have the next drug shot.

[Evergreen]

Love is for those with a sense of adventure.

Not for the pragmatic/cautious of the world.

I just feel that it's a subtle form of social peer pressure that allows some of you to get involved in what you would call relationships :P

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Well, as I pointed out in the start of the text, friendship is absolutely different. I think it is so because friendship is logical, while sex/love are so blinding with all these hormones and chemical things acting in one's brain that its mostly illogical. There is no sense, there is no way of measuring feelings and stuff.. its like dealing with a drug addict. Everything loses importance in comparison to be with the one you love/to have the next drug shot.

Dude, friendship is not logical from any single human being's perspective. Unless by friendship you mean passing accquaintances you occasionaly spend some time with which isn't exactly the conventional definition. Every susbstantial relationship has an element of trust involved in it. The only reason to have friends or to look for "that special someone" is if you think the rewards are greater than the cost.

[Jennifer]

Friends are definitely worth it.
Relationships, possibly not. Depends on the cost to yourself. I'm actively avoiding them at least until I've finished at uni. If you need sex, find a ****buddy. If you need unconditional love, get a dog. If you need something cute, get a cat, and if you need something to say stupid repetitive things at the wrong moments and give you the silent treatment randomly and for no reason, and to chuck their shit all over your floor, get a parrot.

[Embroglio]

both friendships and relationships lead to pain, in my expiriences anyway

[Jennifer]

Relationships don't lead to pain, necessarily. They do lead to distraction. Like a DRUG, I tell you.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Dude, friendship is not logical from any single human being's perspective. Unless by friendship you mean passing accquaintances you occasionaly spend some time with which isn't exactly the conventional definition. Every susbstantial relationship has an element of trust involved in it. The only reason to have friends or to look for "that special someone" is if you think the rewards are greater than the cost.

Friendship is logical because if you hurt and cheat your friend, most likely you are going to lose him, instead of "making it more open and less full of lies"(yes, i heard that excuse once, when wondering why would one still love someone who did all that).

Trust, i agree, is key to any relation. Friendship, of course, is without a question worthy, exactly because it is not driven by the need to be loved.

Love/passion arises as a strong will, like the will to steal food from someone when in absolute hunger, or to kill for a drink of water. The sexual drive is as strong as any other survival instinct. Because thats how we got here.

So, you see, ****ing is as important as eating.


And as the need to be loved is so strong, it might produce aberrations and abnormalities, in the same way eating the dead to survive, people will do the most abominable things for love/sex, one thing that friendship is ridden of.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

while sex/love are so blinding with all these hormones and chemical things acting in one's brain that its mostly illogical. There is no sense, there is no way of measuring feelings and stuff.. its like dealing with a drug addict.

I think you're confusing one of the stages of love (or infatuation, whatever) with love overall.

If you asked a couple who have been together for (say) 10 years, they may be very much in love, but I doubt they are still caught up in the "OMG, I'm consumed by your being" stage still. Obviously there's always hormones and intense feelings but it's considerably less illogical than what you're describing - as time goes on at least. I can only speak for myself, but if you were constantly in the "moronic" stage of love all the time you were in a relationship, no-one would ever get any work done.

Plus, emotions can be overcome or at least chanelled properly into more appropriate behaviour.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Friendship is logical because if you hurt and cheat your friend, most likely you are going to lose him, instead of "making it more open and less full of lies"(yes, i heard that excuse once, when wondering why would one still love someone who did all that).

Are you telling me that when you cheat on your girlfriend your relationship becomes better? What?

Trust, i agree, is key to any relation. Friendship, of course, is without a question worthy, exactly because it is driven by the need to be loved.

Friendship is driven by the wish to have friends. And I'm not sure about you but if I want up to my mates stone sober and said I love you all I'd get a few strange looks.

Love/passion arises as a strong will, like the will to steal food from someone when in absolute hunger, or to kill for a drink of water. The sexual drive is as strong as any other survival instinct. Because thats how we got here.

So, you see, ****ing is as important as eating.

No it isn't. What the hell are you basing that on? Clearly something by definition in your self-interest is going to be pursued more vigourously than something due to genetic inheritance of certain traits or whatever total crap people are saying these days.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Are you telling me that when you cheat on your girlfriend your relationship becomes better? What?

NO i havent. I've heard it. Ilogical eh? Well, thats what love is all about.

Friendship is driven by the wish to have friends. And I'm not sure about you but if I want up to my mates stone sober and said I love you all I'd get a few strange looks.

I mis-posted. Re-read. Sorry.

No it isn't. What the hell are you basing that on? Clearly something by definition in your self-interest is going to be pursued more vigourously than something due to genetic inheritance of certain traits or whatever total crap people are saying these days.

Yes it is. We are built with the only purpuose of having offspring. Everything that happens while we are not doing is irrelevant.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

NO i havent. I've heard it. Ilogical eh? Well, thats what love is all about.

I think it's more of an increased acceptance.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Yes it is. We are built with the only purpuose of having offspring. Everything that happens while we are not doing is irrelevant.

Once, that may have been true, but the human race has like escaped from the cycle of simple reproduction to survive duder.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If you asked a couple who have been together for (say) 10 years, they may be very much in love, but I doubt they are still caught up in the "OMG, I'm consumed by your being" stage still.

They may say they are in love but chances are it has all become a bit habitual and each has become emotionally dependant on the other.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

They may say they are in love but chances are it has all become a bit habitual and each has become emotionally dependant on the other.

People in love being emotionally dependent?

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA?

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

People in love being emotionally dependent?

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA?

So you walk into a bar and see the girl of your dreams, you tell your mates it is 'love at first sight' and all of a sudden you are emotionally dependant on her are you? twat.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

So you walk into a bar and see the girl of your dreams, you tell your mates it is 'love at first sight' and all of a sudden you are emotionally dependant on her are you? twat.

I'm emotionally dependent on Nicole Kidman

[SilverSmoke]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

So you walk into a bar and see the girl of your dreams, you tell your mates it is 'love at first sight'

you believe you can really fall in love like that? How the hell can someone fall in love for only a sight of another person? Ofcourse, you can feel attracted and all that, but how the hell can you get that dominant feeling that seems to be known as 'being in love'.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

you believe you can really fall in love like that? How the hell can someone fall in love for only a sight of another person? Ofcourse, you can feel attracted and all that, but how the hell can you get that dominant feeling that seems to be known as 'being in love'.

I dont believe in love at first sight, I dont know where you got that idea from. Some people do though which is why I used that as an example to reply to Mr_J

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

I dont believe in love at first sight, I dont know where you got that idea from. Some people do though which is why I used that as an example to reply to Mr_J

Whut?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Has anyone seen Lost in Translation yet. That was a lovely film.

Supposed to go see it today. Will see it this week sometime though!

NO i havent. I've heard it. Ilogical eh? Well, thats what love is all about.

What are you basing this on? I heard that the grand canyon was actually the work of god during the great flood six thousand years ago (hello today's independent) but I'm not going to argue that as a definitive matter of fact. Especially not in such a human-dependent interaction as "love". You could go and find many people who are in "love" but are not dependent on each other. Much as you could go and find many people who are dependent on their friends for support and so on.

Yes it is. We are built with the only purpuose of having offspring. Everything that happens while we are not doing is irrelevant.

I was not built or designed. I happen to be the self-aware end product of a statistically unlikely chain of events reaching back six billion years. As a self-aware being I personally reject your assertion as to the purpose of my life. I will decide what is relevant and what is not for my life, as you will for yours.


PS Mr_J is the name of the section (pa alliance) leader!

[Nodrog]

The world will be a better place when people learn to stop generalising their own personal failures/experiences across the entirity of the human race. Why say "love is illogical" when you seem to mean "my last X relationships didnt 'work'"? Also, I agree with Dante.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Once, that may have been true, but the human race has like escaped from the cycle of simple reproduction to survive duder.

There, right there we have the cornerstone of all the people who oppose me.

You dont realise that civilization has only been around in the last 1% of human history, which is VERY short in comparison to other species, not to mention life itself.

Genes are something that have been around for billions of years, and so far has been the best idea to propagate life. Its simple, genes have the information to build a organic machine, and to impel such a machine to exchange data on "machinery making". The process generates eventual mutations, and as some of this machine fail to pass their know how any further, they disapear. Make the step of exchanging the knowledge specially time consuming, complicated and hard to achieve, and the machines who are able to fullfill this task will be the most apt to live.

But how are you going to convince such entities to sacrifice so much in order to reproduce, specially when machines with an ever growing inteligence, and even one species that eventually developed self awareness?
Its simple. Flood the brain with drugs that gets such an organism happy when he undergo the replicating activity, and flood the brain with drugs that make such an organism feel exrutiating pain when he is not.


That emotional roller coaster, my naive colleagues, is love.

As i pointed out, geneticallywise, we havent changed. We are as vulnerable to mood swings as our ancestors. You just cant turn the genes off ATM. You can bring your fustian speech about love, but the reality is that it is just a way of controling the living beings and force them to mate.

There is no love.

The problem is that you overrate the human machine. It is very simple, infact. You must stop the mistification of our feelings, and realise that we are what we see. There isnt more than what meets the eye. Infact, there is less.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The world will be a better place when people learn to stop generalising their own personal failures/experiences across the entirity of the human race. Why say "love is illogical" when you seem to mean "my last X relationships didnt 'work'"? Also, I agree with Dante.

I think it would also be interesting if people understood how people are incredibly predictable and consistently similar. I've read quite a lot on the subject of psicology, and it revealed to me how simple and mecanic we are.
You also should start to reconsider your creed on the greatness of the human body.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I think you misunderstood my post completely, personally.

[Dante Hicks]

You're talking like the people you are arguing with/against don't understand evolution.

This is not creationists you are arguing against. These are people who on the whole understand the scientific method and probably (no offence) more on evolution than you do. And yet you still fall into elementary errors like "ahah, you don't realise that civilisation hasn't been around....".

Funnily enough, people know roughly how long civilisation has been around. They understand your point, they merely disagree.

edit : Actually, some of your comments aren't really wrong. They're more stupidly put. I've often thought that of evolutionary-psychology or socio-biology in general : It's taking the extremely obvious and trying to state it in the most controversial manner possible to seem radical.

Obviously the love / pair-bonding series of emotions came via an evolutionary trait to ensure mating / survival of children. This isn't a new idea, it's not controversial and it's not radical.

[Baron Morte]

Why is it that since I joined these boards everyone questions my positions on evolution and they never explain what is wrong with it?

Where i come from, this is called trolling.

And MRL, if you want to be understood, try using more than one punch lines.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Why is it that since I joined these boards everyone questions my positions on evolution and they never explain what is wrong with it?

See my edit to the above post.

I understand you are excited by your new idea that you've discovered the "meaning of life" in your biological determinism. A lot of people feel the same way upon reading evolutionary / psychology / cognitive science type material for the first time. But do we really have to have bland proclamations saying "my naive colleagues"? If you've got a specific problem with what someone has posted, take it apart bit by bit.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

And MRL, if you want to be understood, try using more than one punch lines.

I think it's perfectly understandable. I'm going to bed shortly so I don't feel like expanding, however.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

edit : Actually, some of your comments aren't really wrong. They're more stupidly put. I've often thought that of evolutionary-psychology or socio-biology in general : It's taking the extremely obvious and trying to state it in the most controversial manner possible to seem radical.

"to seem radical"?
What the hell would I do that for, and specially in a forum????
Where do you think you are? What do you think this is?
I have no interest in anything except do discuss the matter and come with a scientifical response. I dont want my argument to prevail, I am not "In love" with my theories. They are here to be scrutinized by everyone, and if someone comes up with a better theory, ill dump mine and get a new one, but most people here are failing tremendously at this.

Obviously the love / pair-bonding series of emotions came via an evolutionary trait to ensure mating / survival of children. This isn't a new idea, it's not controversial and it's not radical.

Then why, OMG why arent you bearing this in mind?

It was obvious to me, but you all seem that this is somehow wrong

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What are you basing this on? I heard that the grand canyon was actually the work of god during the great flood six thousand years ago


(hello today's independent) but I'm not going to argue that as a definitive matter of fact. Especially not in such a human-dependent interaction as "love". You could go and find many people who are in "love" but are not dependent on each other. Much as you could go and find many people who are dependent on their friends for support and so on.

I was just explaining that Love is a relation which is more chaotic, impredictable and generally ilogical than friendship because of all the drugs that are related to love, the seretonins and etc, what produce severe mood swings in the users.
Friendship, for the exact reason that is generally rid of such drugs, is a more logical one.
Am I wrong?

I was not built or designed. I happen to be the self-aware end product of a statistically unlikely chain of events reaching back six billion years. As a self-aware being I personally reject your assertion as to the purpose of my life. I will decide what is relevant and what is not for my life, as you will for yours.

You were designed by your genes in the hope that you would be the most fit form to carry the genes onwards. I wonder if you can deny this.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

"to seem radical"?
What the hell would I do that for, and specially in a forum????
Where do you think you are? What do you think this is?
I have no interest in anything except do discuss the matter and come with a scientifical response. I dont want my argument to prevail, I am not "In love" with my theories. They are here to be scrutinized by everyone, and if someone comes up with a better theory, ill dump mine and get a new one, but most people here are failing tremendously at this.
:

This is a serious board for serious people who have serious things to discuss! If you cant come here with a theory and have reams of information to back up why you have that theory, dont come here at all, sonny jim. Any views or theories you have that you havent spent half your life proving with proper scientific research and dozens of white papers are simply not welcome here!!

[Thorn]

Love cannot be unreciprocated. That is 'liking' someone. I take it, Baron, that you have never experienced such a feeling. You are also bitter about the futility of your efforts. You'll get over it, and this thread will seem really stupid to you.

[Evergreen]

This thread is cute as in it reminds me of how cute it is when you watch dog's court each other when you are out walking them.

Little things don't know what's going on around them.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Then why, OMG why arent you bearing this in mind?

Where have I disagreed with any reasonable evolution statement, you've made? In this thread

Maybe it's the language you use which means everyone wants to disagree with you. I mean, look at this :

You were designed by your genes in the hope that you would be the most fit form to carry the genes onwards. I wonder if you can deny this.

Hope? How the hell do genes hope? Genes do not hope, or wish, or prey, or indeed have any sentient though.

Plus, even saying "You were designed by your genes" is kind of weird. It's sort of true, in a round-about way, but it's like saying that a building was designed BY it's blue prints, which is clearly toss. Maybe you mean we were designed via a process of a natural selection (and even then design is the wrong word, but it's slightly better in that context).

Design implies intelligent purpose. Designed FOR something implies not only a given purpose but moral imperative. This is where biological determinism falls. One of the most common errors made by stupid people is to say things like "We shouldn't have medicene because nature didn't make us for that, let the weak die" or something silly like that. My hands may have been "designed for" food collection on some very weak level, but the fact I'm using a keyboard now with them isn't a bad thing. Similarly, using your language we may have been designed "for" having children but that does not mean that childless couples, or homosexuals, or single people are somehow failing.

[Nusselt]

i just want to snuggle.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

I was just explaining that Love is a relation which is more chaotic, impredictable and generally ilogical than friendship because of all the drugs that are related to love, the seretonins and etc, what produce severe mood swings in the users.
Friendship, for the exact reason that is generally rid of such drugs, is a more logical one.
Am I wrong?

Yes because you're categorising love and friendships as absolutes whereas in reality they're merely descriptive terms used to convey a general state and as such not only vary based on the individuals involved on them, but literally cannot be the same. It's like saying something like "every work of art da vinci produced was fantastic", not only was the painting he created aged 4 pretty crap but the entire nature of subjectivity precludes statements of this nature. Gedditt?

You were designed by your genes in the hope that you would be the most fit form to carry the genes onwards. I wonder if you can deny this.

I was designed by my genes? My genes don't design a ****ing thing. They're the end result of an unpredictable chain of events leading back six billion years (as I said before). If whatever I do is determined by my genes (which it isn't anyways because you have to include evolving circumstances when you're speaking of human development) then my genes are me. As such saying they determine what I do is nothing more than a deceptive truism.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Anyway, genes don't actually map out the individual; it's like saying that blueprints tell you everything about the house, when what you're asking about is actually the table in the dining room.

[JonnyBGood]

I still hate analogies even when they're supporting my position. ****ing Greeks.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I still hate analogies even when they're supporting my position. ****ing Greeks.

"Evolution is to analogies what statues are to birdshit."

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Hope? How the hell do genes hope? Genes do not hope, or wish, or prey, or indeed have any sentient though.

I wish that minor sintax/semantics problems were to be disregardaded for the sake of the discussion.
They dont hope, you are right. They expect.

Plus, even saying "You were designed by your genes" is kind of weird. It's sort of true, in a round-about way, but it's like saying that a building was designed BY it's blue prints, which is clearly toss. Maybe you mean we were designed via a process of a natural selection (and even then design is the wrong word, but it's slightly better in that context).

Most people tend to go the fifty fifty speech when faced with this affirmation, the old nature and nurture debate. But the way i face it, its more 90-10%, with the advantage of the genes.
The experiences can shape people, thats right. But the way you seize the experiences are intrinsically conected with the genes. The new researches, which are being conducted with identical twins split at birth are revealing that people have a staggering low freedom when it comes to shaping personalities, moods and even carreers.
The allegory of the building is a very falwty one given the simple reason buildings dont have offspring and nor they are the result of sex.

Design implies intelligent purpose.Designed FOR something implies not only a given purpose but moral imperative.

True
The purpuose is *drum roll* to pass the genes forward.
Designed is the word.

One of the most common errors made by stupid people is to say things like "We shouldn't have medicene because nature didn't make us for that, let the weak die" or something silly like that.

As MRL said, as the smart guy that he is (no humour intended, he is bright), is that "natural" is a horrible term. And I agree with that in virtually every single aspect.

My hands may have been "designed for" food collection on some very weak level, but the fact I'm using a keyboard now with them isn't a bad thing.

Not true. They were designed like that because somehow it "helped" your ancestors to reproduce.

Similarly, using your language we may have been designed "for" having children but that does not mean that childless couples, or homosexuals, or single people are somehow failing.

It was not designed to have children. Quite frankly I dont have the knowledge to explain to you how our language developed, but whichever the course of things were, it helped the species to survive.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yes because you're categorising love and friendships as absolutes whereas in reality they're merely descriptive terms used to convey a general state and as such not only vary based on the individuals involved on them, but literally cannot be the same.

Do you realize how meaningless this is?
its like saying "war itself does not mean anything, its just something that we all agreed on as a word to describe the act of fighting amongst countries".
Semantically they must be absolute or people wont have how to deal with it. Take the descriptions of a dictionary. That is what I am referring to.

passion/infatuation/Love = wanting to have sex = brain flooded with drugs = illogical (as are drunken and addicted people)

Friendship = No sex = no drugs = rational and reasonable.

It is obvious that there are stages in between, but if you go down that road, you can bring up anything and that wont help the debate.

It's like saying something like "every work of art da vinci produced was fantastic", not only was the painting he created aged 4 pretty crap but the entire nature of subjectivity precludes statements of this nature. Gedditt?

Actually no. Are you trying to say that there are various kind of friendships and various kinds of love?

If so, dont let them fool you, its all the same.

I was designed by my genes? My genes don't design a ****ing thing. They're the end result of an unpredictable chain of events leading back six billion years (as I said before). If whatever I do is determined by my genes (which it isn't anyways because you have to include evolving circumstances when you're speaking of human development) then my genes are me. As such saying they determine what I do is nothing more than a deceptive truism.

You are not your genes. They just created you in the best shape they could so you would reproduce, because thats what they are around for. You see, in the grand scheme of things your model is one that is winning the battle. When your father's code met your mother's code the circle was fullfiled and this code proved to be worthy of the challange, and then the genes combined, because their are the genes of survivors.
Yes I know that there are no sentience, no grand scheme no nothing, I just thought that putting it this way it would seem more understandable.

Well its very late and I am having a case of constipated thought, but what i can say is that you are not your genes because you are sentient, and the genes not.
However, as they designed your body(see previous post) you are kind of stuck with them.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

They dont hope, you are right. They expect.

I think you missed my point. They don't expect either. Humans hope / expect / etc. Chemical's don't. It's like saying a tin opener expects to open tins of beans, which is clearly rubbish.

Most people tend to go the fifty fifty speech when faced with this affirmation, the old nature and nurture debate. But the way i face it, its more 90-10%, with the advantage of the genes.

How this relates to the text you quoted baffles me, since I said nothing at all about nature vs nurture. I was talking about natural selection, and you've said something completley irrelevent in response. Perhaps this is a language problem.

Plus, have you actually read any of the twin research btw? Some of it is highly dubious at best (See Lewontin, Rose, Kamin's "Not in our Genes").

Designed is the word.

Designed is a rubbish word for the reasons I've already given. Maybe it has different meanings in other languages, but in English it implies intelligent forethought.

Same with purpose, but as I say that has a moral dimension to in some instances, so it's even less suitable.

Not true. They were designed like that because somehow it "helped" your ancestors to reproduce.

I think you've missed my point. OK, fine it was there to help me reproduce. But if I use my hands (or penis, or whatever) to do something else that has absolutley ZERO moral implication. Hume's fallacy basically.

Actually no. Are you trying to say that there are various kind of friendships and various kinds of love? If so, dont let them fool you, its all the same.

You're an idiot if you believe this. Even if the biological response is the same (which is clearly shit btw) this is laughably wrong. I'm not sure if it's down to a language thing, or a conceptual thing, or merely due to lack of life experience, but the idea of their only being one type of love (let's ignore friendship) is stupid. If nothing else you're conflating sex with love anyway.

I'll ignore the science, and give you some personal experience. There are some types of relationships (with women) I have had where I have felt an insane emotional connection which completley floors you. You feel insecure, you want to see them all the time, you are jealous when other men look at them, etc, etc. It's kind of a desire which transcends sexual desire. Indeed, in some instances, you don't even want them sexually that much. All of this can be explained using evolutionary psychology, I agree.

However, there are other women where none of that applies and you just want to **** 'em. I'm not saying this can't be explained by biology either - merely that they are clearly not identical emotional reactions. Saying they are the same thing bastardises the range of human emotions. You mention the dictionary, but even the dictionary lists multiple meanings to words.

Love can apply to partners, friends or whatever. It can apply to a sexual passion, intense emotional desire, or a low burning friendship or whatever. I'm pretty sure if I got home tommorow and my friends had been murdered my brain would be "flooded with chemicals" to use your term. Your dichotomoy between rational / irrational relationships is unhelpful.

While I have no desire to promote biological determinism, if you've got some free-time you should probably subscribe to the Yahoo Group on Evolutionary Psychology at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/ I used to read regularly sometime when I was doing my reading in this area. It'll undoubtedly make you worse, but it might actually lead to some sophistication in your argument.

Your overall point isn't that objectional as stated, it's merely the specifics where you ocassionally stray into error.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Read Dawkins.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Do you realize how meaningless this is?
its like saying "war itself does not mean anything, its just something that we all agreed on as a word to describe the act of fighting amongst countries".
Semantically they must be absolute or people wont have how to deal with it. Take the descriptions of a dictionary. That is what I am referring to.

passion/infatuation/Love = wanting to have sex = brain flooded with drugs = illogical (as are drunken and addicted people)

Friendship = No sex = no drugs = rational and reasonable.

It is obvious that there are stages in between, but if you go down that road, you can bring up anything and that wont help the debate.

The point is that relationships can only be defined by the human beings involved in them. I don't know how many different ways I can say this in. For one thing love is not equal to wanting to have sex (unless you want to shag your own mother which I guess I'm okay with on an abstract level). Equally plenty of people have sex which is quite simply just sex with no emotional baggage and is certainly rational in the sense that all you're doing is getting your rocks off. I've also seen plenty of occasions in a friendship where irrational actions have occured (sacrifice of self etc). Plus I'd bet you anything that in some friendships there are certain drugs released.

Actually no. Are you trying to say that there are various kind of friendships and various kinds of love?

If so, dont let them fool you, its all the same.

Of course there bloody is. Have you never had more than one friend or one girlfriend or something?

You are not your genes. They just created you in the best shape they could so you would reproduce, because thats what they are around for. You see, in the grand scheme of things your model is one that is winning the battle. When your father's code met your mother's code the circle was fullfiled and this code proved to be worthy of the challange, and then the genes combined, because their are the genes of survivors.
Yes I know that there are no sentience, no grand scheme no nothing, I just thought that putting it this way it would seem more understandable.

This is just stupid. You have to include circumstances or else nothing makes sense (on the most banal level why do people still commit suicide after all this time then, our genes must be fairly shit). The genes are the genes of people who survived, which is a different thing from the genes of survivors. Someone can be a great survivor but it won't ****ing help if you nuke his city. There is no battle, shit happens. History isn't explained by a model, shit happens.

Well its very late and I am having a case of constipated thought, but what i can say is that you are not your genes because you are sentient, and the genes not.
However, as they designed your body(see previous post) you are kind of stuck with them.

This is the most irritating circle of repetitive boredom I've ever experienced.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think you missed my point. They don't expect either. Humans hope / expect / etc. Chemical's don't. It's like saying a tin opener expects to open tins of beans, which is clearly rubbish.How this relates to the text you quoted baffles me, since I said nothing at all about nature vs nurture. I was talking about natural selection, and you've said something completley irrelevent in response. Perhaps this is a language problem.

Plus, have you actually read any of the twin research btw? Some of it is highly dubious at best (See Lewontin, Rose, Kamin's "Not in our Genes").Designed is a rubbish word for the reasons I've already given. Maybe it has different meanings in other languages, but in English it implies intelligent forethought.

Same with purpose, but as I say that has a moral dimension to in some instances, so it's even less suitable.I think you've missed my point. OK, fine it was there to help me reproduce. But if I use my hands (or penis, or whatever) to do something else that has absolutley ZERO moral implication. Hume's fallacy basically.You're an idiot if you believe this. Even if the biological response is the same (which is clearly shit btw) this is laughably wrong. I'm not sure if it's down to a language thing, or a conceptual thing, or merely due to lack of life experience, but the idea of their only being one type of love (let's ignore friendship) is stupid. If nothing else you're conflating sex with love anyway.

I'll ignore the science, and give you some personal experience. There are some types of relationships (with women) I have had where I have felt an insane emotional connection which completley floors you. You feel insecure, you want to see them all the time, you are jealous when other men look at them, etc, etc. It's kind of a desire which transcends sexual desire. Indeed, in some instances, you don't even want them sexually that much. All of this can be explained using evolutionary psychology, I agree.

However, there are other women where none of that applies and you just want to **** 'em. I'm not saying this can't be explained by biology either - merely that they are clearly not identical emotional reactions. Saying they are the same thing bastardises the range of human emotions. You mention the dictionary, but even the dictionary lists multiple meanings to words.

Love can apply to partners, friends or whatever. It can apply to a sexual passion, intense emotional desire, or a low burning friendship or whatever. I'm pretty sure if I got home tommorow and my friends had been murdered my brain would be "flooded with chemicals" to use your term. Your dichotomoy between rational / irrational relationships is unhelpful.

While I have no desire to promote biological determinism, if you've got some free-time you should probably subscribe to the Yahoo Group on Evolutionary Psychology at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/ I used to read regularly sometime when I was doing my reading in this area. It'll undoubtedly make you worse, but it might actually lead to some sophistication in your argument.

Your overall point isn't that objectional as stated, it's merely the specifics where you ocassionally stray into error.

I apreciate the attention that you are giving to my arguments, and the patience you have dealt with my errant arguments.
However I must state that
1)It is expected of the knife to cut a slice of bread. Someone who casted such a knife, and then sharpened it, expected it to cut. Genes cast and sharp our bodies. They expect that such a body would be able to reproduce. It is not by chance that your hands have five fingers, it is expected that. You genes expect to make a hand with 5 fingers, except when there are mutations and the like, then they expect something else.
2)With that I was trying to prove to you that we are designed by our mostly by our genes and not the experiences, which I think you are referring to with the building analogy.
3)Design might be foretoughted, yes, but it might be trial and error, as in evolution. Our hands were not made to pick strawberries. It happens that we have this hand, and by having them our life improved. So its like the oposite of that, its a tought that stood the test of time., something build afterwards.
4)The different emotions you experience with girls happens because people are different, and your subconscisness reacted different to each one. You developed an specific response to each one, a response that would be most suitable to the sucess of the mating bit. Some girls you just cant get hold of, and haivng sex just for the kicks might work. Some girls you can grasp, and being around to help raising the offspring is helpfull. SOme girls are ugly or non interesting then you dont even care to take care of the offspring you had with it, its just a facet.

Well i have a job interview tomorrow, i hope you are enjoying this discussion as much as I do, ill resume tomorrow with Johnny's bit.
And thanks to you guys i read a bit of dawkins today and I found it excellent. He is like the carl sagan for the biology. Too bad that all of this seems like a poor rip off of his work.

[Nodrog]

Ive got a few questions

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

4)The different emotions you experience with girls happens because people are different, and your subconscisness reacted different to each one. You developed an specific response to each one, a response that would be most suitable to the sucess of the mating bit. Some girls you just cant get hold of, and haivng sex just for the kicks might work. Some girls you can grasp, and being around to help raising the offspring is helpfull. SOme girls are ugly or non interesting then you dont even care to take care of the offspring you had with it, its just a facet.
.

So what is your theory actually saying then? How does it help to explain the behavoir you just mentioned? What phenomenon does it explan that a more nurture/"free will" orientated theory has trouble with? What observations could potentially refute it - is there any human behavoir that would pose a problem for the theory to explain, or could you adapt it to cover anything? More relevantly to the thread topic, are you claiming the current relationship 'games' played by males/females in relationships are more genetically caused than cultural? That the role of an individual man/woman today is defined primarilly by his genes and not the structure of society?

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Well, as I pointed out in the start of the text, friendship is absolutely different. I think it is so because friendship is logical, while sex/love are so blinding with all these hormones and chemical things acting in one's brain that its mostly illogical. There is no sense, there is no way of measuring feelings and stuff.. its like dealing with a drug addict. Everything loses importance in comparison to be with the one you love/to have the next drug shot.

How does this integrate into your main theory? You claim that love is 'illogical' because hormones and chemicals 'confuse' the brain, but your whole point seems to be that we materistically "are" our chemicals, and that we are solely determined by genes. Isnt this a fundamental contradiction? If everything we do is gentically determined, what sense does it make to speak of an action as being more 'logical' than another? (before you try and take an 'objective' perspective to answer the last question, bear in mind you 'are' also a genetically programmed entity who cannot speak outiwth the subjective position of his own material construction).

But how are you going to convince such entities to sacrifice so much in order to reproduce, specially when machines with an ever growing inteligence, and even one species that eventually developed self awareness?

Its simple. Flood the brain with drugs that gets such an organism happy when he undergo the replicating activity, and flood the brain with drugs that make such an organism feel exrutiating pain when he is not.

As i pointed out, geneticallywise, we havent changed. We are as vulnerable to mood swings as our ancestors. You just cant turn the genes off ATM. You can bring your fustian speech about love, but the reality is that it is just a way of controling the living beings and force them to mate.

Are genes some kind of conscious alien gnomes that control us? What sense does it make talking of our genes as some kind of intelligent designers? You seem to be postulating some kind of dualism here, where the 'genes' of the body are trying to influence the mind to do what they want, by using magic chemicals. Why would people need stimulus such as 'happyness' - do you think fish and cows need happyness to preserve their genes? You seem to talk of human consciousness as if its some kind of naughty troublemaker that wants to undo all the hard work carried out by 'genes' and evolution, 'forcing' 'them' to develop subtle and nefarious methods to bring it under control. If human consciousness was intrinsically detrimental to the survival of the genes, then why would 'they' have 'let' it 'evolve' in the first place?

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

I was just explaining that Love is a relation which is more chaotic, impredictable and generally ilogical than friendship because of all the drugs that are related to love, the seretonins and etc, what produce severe mood swings in the users.
Friendship, for the exact reason that is generally rid of such drugs, is a more logical one.
Am I wrong?
.

As above. Our friendships arent 100% decided by chemicals as well? Its awfully 'nice' of our genes to 'allow' 'us' to think for 'ourselves' in this one area at least.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

The purpuose is *drum roll* to pass the genes forward.

What sense does it make to talk of purpose outside of evaluatory consciousness? Surely purpose by definition involves an intellectual judgement of a process, rather than one that objectively exists in non-sentient nature? It makes no more sense to talk of genes having the 'purpose' of perpetuating themselves than it does to talk of the sun having the 'purpose' of emitting light.

its like saying "war itself does not mean anything, its just something that we all agreed on as a word to describe the act of fighting amongst countries".
Semantically they must be absolute or people wont have how to deal with it.

passion/infatuation/Love = wanting to have sex = brain flooded with drugs = illogical (as are drunken and addicted people)

I dont understand what you mean by things being absolute semantically, but I suspect I'd disagree. All you seem to be saying here is "I use the word love to mean something different from what you do". Your attempt to objectively fully define a term used to describe an internal feeling seems naive even more so is your attempt to say that your definition 'is' 'objectively' 'correct'. The concept that youve abstracted under the label love might well be "sex and brain chemicals", but this doesnt mean that this concept is somehow universalized in all humans who use the same linguistic term. Words can mean very different things to different people.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

It is expected of the knife to cut a slice of bread. Someone who casted such a knife, and then sharpened it, expected it to cut. Genes cast and sharp our bodies. They expect that such a body would be able to reproduce. It is not by chance that your hands have five fingers, it is expected that. You genes expect to make a hand with 5 fingers, except when there are mutations and the like, then they expect something else.

The difference is noone designs genes. They don't have a ready made purpose.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

With that I was trying to prove to you that we are designed by our mostly by our genes and not the experiences, which I think you are referring to with the building analogy.

I personally believe that to be a fallacy, because in some instances nurture plays a large part in deciding personality. Indeed, that's the standard scientific thinking at the moment.

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Design might be foretoughted, yes, but it might be trial and error, as in evolution. Our hands were not made to pick strawberries. It happens that we have this hand, and by having them our life improved. So its like the oposite of that, its a tought that stood the test of time., something build afterwards.

What?

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

And thanks to you guys i read a bit of dawkins today and I found it excellent. He is like the carl sagan for the biology. Too bad that all of this seems like a poor rip off of his work.

Dawkins didn't invent biology duder. He just commented on it. If anything, he's ripping off other people's work too. Which would be stupid. Just like your comparison.

Hey, I think Deffeh is ripping off Martin O'Neill because they both rate Heskey highly!

[Baron Morte]

I am under the impression that we can go on like this forever, getting even more tautological as we were in the last few replies. I think that i dont have arguments that are strong enough to convince you people otherwise, nor I have the open mindness or the brightness to understand your point of view, or maybe your arguments are not as strong as they should.
However I am feeling impelled to say the following.
ºDawkins did not invent biology, much in the same way Carl Sagan didnt invent astrology. Nevertheless what both have in common is the fact that both tried to make their fields more understandable for the average citizen, making it "pop".
ºI believe that my theory is flexible enough to deal with any situation, because is based upon evolution, which is what made life possible in an ever changing enviorement. ( I find interesting the fact that you always ask me some way to disprove my theory, nod. Why is that? I am eager to know!!!)
ºThe brain do have a normal operation. Yes it is a chemicallly based system, And when you have no strong emotions ( I think it is 90% of the time), then your brain is working under normal conditions. Whenever any stressful situation appears, like pain (emotional or physical) or the pressure to reproduce, your brain jumps out of the regular operation system and falls into the "reproduction mode".
º The genes desing us in the sense they shape us. They shape us with resemblance to our parents, because they reproduced and prooved to be worthy of the challange. Survivor genes.

And i guess this is it. I dont think its any good to drag this debate on, because we are just finding other ways to say the same thigns. Thank you all for your cooperation!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

( I find interesting the fact that you always ask me some way to disprove my theory, nod. Why is that? I am eager to know!!!)

I won't comment on the rest of your post, but on this, the reason why people ask this because they want to know if it's a proper scientific theory or not.

If I have a theory that "No black man could be good at chess" then it is easy to disprove, you can find me a black man who is good at chess and my theory will be destroyed. Therefore, I will make a claim, and there is a clear way to disprove it.

Your theory (and many others) suffers from the lack of a falsification possibility. You can say ANYTHING is a result of genes, so it doesn't tell us anything. If you said : "Well, I have studied genetics, and I have theorised that no animal would exist which has over 20 fingers on each limb." Then at least we have a strong claim to test.

But if you can put _any_ kind of behaviour down to genetic influence (from suicide to murder, from rape to homosexuality from sex to anything else) then it becomes worthless.