Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shrike on July 15, 2002, 05:02:15 pm
-
I've noticed that certain topics then to pop up in random threads fairly often, sex and everything surrounding it tends to be one of the more common and amusing ones. So why not start an entire thread dedicated to sex? And relationships, marriage, etc.
So start arguing people!
And no, this isn't entirely serious. ;)
-
:wtf: This will end in fire.
-
Well, I don't really think I need to express my opinion on this...
Or need I? :D ;7
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
:wtf: This will end in fire.
Many relationships do, many don't.
-
They all do as far as I am concerned. :p :D
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
This will end in fire.
Well, now we only need to see what kind of fire... :D
-
The Muslim system is funny. If the Husband commits adultery, the wife gets get punished. Quite a few things i find highly amusing about Islam
-
Originally posted by CP5670
They all do as far as I am concerned. :p :D
You don't even understand the concept of "relationship", even less "sex", so shut up!! :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
They all do as far as I am concerned. :p :D
Remind me to fill up your mental RAM with porn. :p
-
*Runs for cover!* ;)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Remind me to fill up your mental RAM with porn. :p
LOL! 0wnagE!! :D
-
Originally posted by Styxx
You don't even understand the concept of "relationship", even less "sex", so shut up!! :D
I concur. CP5670 gonna build a island with a new society without sex and it'll go extinct due to a illegal operation in the computer thats sorting out the machines which do the cloning :nod:
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I've noticed that certain topics then to pop up in random threads fairly often, sex and everything surrounding it tends to be one of the more common and amusing ones. So why not start an entire thread dedicated to sex? And relationships, marriage, etc.
So start arguing people!
And no, this isn't entirely serious. ;)
Give me a reason not to ban you ;)
-
This thread is already turned to brimstone.
I demand a TaS Thread!
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Give me a reason not to ban you ;)
He bought VBB for you. ;)
-
You don't even understand the concept of "relationship", even less "sex", so shut up!! :D
I don't really care though; I understand enough of it to know that they are both things for idiots. :p Like I have said before here, sex is absolutely retarded. :D
-
Originally posted by Thunder
Give me a reason not to ban you ;)
Because this should be a highly amusing thread? ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I don't really care though; I understand enough of it to know that they are both things for idiots. :p :D
:jaw: Im shocked by your insultive comment, your practically calling everyone on the board :p
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Because this should be a highly amusing thread? ;)
TaS TaS TaS! Join the rebellion, the TaSC!
-
SILENCE
TaS is boring and juvenile. Despite what many people think, sex and relationships are not simple infantile matters. I want to see if people can actually debate this topic in a vaguelly adult matter.
-
:jaw: Im shocked by your insultive comment, your practically calling everyone on the board :p
They are as far as that goes... :p
Let's have some more people like me here! :D
-
Originally posted by Shrike
SILENCE
TaS is boring and juvenile. Despite what many people think, sex and relationships are not simple infantile matters. I want to see if people can actually debate this topic in a vaguelly adult matter.
I dunno, its sorta just repeating the Religion thread.
-
Do you have some support for your position that this entire subject is worthless and should be deleted from the sum of human culture?
-
Originally posted by Shrike
SILENCE
TaS is boring and juvenile. Despite what many people think, sex and relationships are not simple infantile matters. I want to see if people can actually debate this topic in a vaguelly adult matter.
You are playing with fire basically. Hehe.
The thing is, sex and realationships are too vague of a topic, state something for specific if you want better results.
-
Do you have some support for your position that this entire subject is worthless and should be deleted from the sum of human culture?
Oh of course I do, but I have not properly organized all the material yet; you will see the proof later on. :D
-
We've already got our first topic.... discussing CP's allegations that interpersonal relationships are needless.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Do you have some support for your position that this entire subject is worthless and should be deleted from the sum of human culture?
i hope thats being directed at the local madman and not the local Hangermadman.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Let's have some more people like me here! :D
Well, you see, there's not much people like you because, you know, they... well, they don't breed!! :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Oh of course I do, but I have not properly organized all the material yet; you will see the proof later on. :D
So deliver some selections from it.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Oh of course I do, but I have not properly organized all the material yet; you will see the proof later on. :D
If you were logical, you would see that logic states that reproduction though existing methods is the most effective way. Due to this our physological makeup actually encourages it, very forcefully during the mid teenage years, i refuse to believe what your saying is the truth, its physically impossible unless you,ve got some hormonual(sp i know) problem.
-
ummm maybe b/c there are more bad things that can happen than good ones?
*Larry the Slut comes to the door*
You: Yes?
Larry: Here's your kid, now gimmie child support.
You: Huh? I want a DNA test!
Larry: I''ll give u a DNA test!!!!!
*beats the **** out of you*
Larry: I told you that thing was leaky, especially after the fifth time! Now pay up *****!
Bleh, sex without the comforts of steady pay and a stable household is bad. Unless you can't have children, but then you got all these other "special gifts" wrapped that could hurt your "pp." Not worth it, it's not all that special and holy, it's just you don't want to be some trash that has 6 kids and they are all bastards. And don't give me that abortion crap. Unless it's life threatening to the mother there should be no abortion, it is just a consquence you should have to live with. Everything has some kind of consquence, a lot are good, but some are bad, and unless you like spending all your money on daipers and child support then it might be wise to hold off on what Captian Winky is telling you to do.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
ummm maybe b/c there are more bad things that can happen than good ones?
*Larry the Slut comes to the door*
You: Yes?
Larry: Here's your kid, now gimmie child support.
You: Huh? I want a DNA test!
Larry: I''ll give u a DNA test!!!!!
*beats the **** out of you*
Larry: I told you that thing was leaky, especially after the fifth time! Now pay up *****!
Bleh, sex without the comforts of steady pay and a stable household is bad. Unless you can't have children, but then you got all these other "special gifts" wrapped that could hurt your "pp." Not worth it, it's not all that special and holy, it's just you don't want to be some trash that has 6 kids and they are all bastards. And don't give me that abortion crap. Unless it's life threatening to the mother there should be no abortion, it is just a consquence you should have to live with. Everything has some kind of consquence, a lot are good, but some are bad, and unless you like spending all your money on daipers and child support then it might be wise to hold off on what Captian Winky is telling you to do.
That's why there are prevention methods, and by intelligently using them, you can safely avoid all those problems. Still, most married couples today are not financially ready when they have children, what destabilizes the "relationship" and may cause the marriage to end. Is that any better than the marriage never existing in the first place?
-
Larry? :wtf:
Just a comment, you seem to be confusing unsafe - stupid - sex to safe sex. Sure, accidents happen, but what about if you get stuck in an abusive marriage?
The way I see that, it's bad relationship choices.
-
The problems are contraceptics(sp) are not full proof, and birth control doesn't protect from VD's anyways.
I don't know about Brazil but the fincial problems in the US are a ***** to deal with without a marriage, and they are still a ***** to deal with in a divorce as well I've been through court battles. Not very fun stuff.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Larry? :wtf:
She seemed just your type of woman...a very....manly...woman at that! :D
-
Uh...... huh. :wtf:
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
I don't know about Brazil...
Well, I can tell you one thing about Brazil: we're a lot more... open... about all this stuff around here than most northern hemisphere countries. ;)
-
Ooooh, a pointless thread! I must contribute!
Sex is good. Its a worthwhile and noble cause. ;7
Thats all I have to say.... for now.
-
Now, I'm not gonna say its a big Jerry Springer episode here, but magic S or the L word is used in about every other conversation you get into. Depends on the part of the country. Go farther north and east or into california it is more openly tolerated than let's say in Alabama, Texas, or Virginia.
-
Again, I'm seeing lots of problems that are laid on the doorstep of an active sexuality that are more properly the fault of poor relationship or life choices.
If you're worried about getting a VD, ask your partner to be tested. If they refuse, that should clue you in something is weird and perhaps you shouldn't do anything anyway. As for the failure rates on contraceptives, they're pretty low, or there'd be lots of my friends with kids already.
-
this should be changed to "The Big Spam HLP Sex and dating thread"
-
This is definitely going to be the most ****ed up, disturbing, mental health threatening thread ever. Even more so that Road Trip.
I have IWANGF to discuss such matters :p
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
this should be changed to "The Big Spam HLP Sex and dating thread"
Yes, you're really helping. Now shush unless you actually have something to contribute.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
they're pretty low, or there'd be lots of my friends with kids already.
And about half of mine are fathers, or mothers.
-
:eek:
Ouch.... That would color your perception I guess. What kind of age ranges?
-
Hmm. Only one of my friends has ever even come close to knocking someone up. Which reminds me, I've got to ask him about the test results.
-
Presex people bust into Shrike's room.
"You are under arrest for a sexual encounter you will commit in 48 hours!"
-
It all matters on personal opinion more than religion or moral standards. I'm not saying "Oooooo sex is bad, but I am saying think about what your doing with the head on your shoulders before you start thinking with that head down south. Sex just complicates everything, and adds that extra variable into ANY relationship. If you've been with this girl awhile, and if she wants to just, go ahead just remember that chance you could be called Daddy pretty quick.
Now most of you 12-15 year old geeks, yes you are geeks so be quite, are thinking "Boo! You suck! Your gay!" Unlike some of you geeks , but not all of you, I don't have wet dreams when a REAL GIRL actually says Hello. You know, I just go somewhere with them, yadda yadda yadda the dating mumbo jumbo and take her right back home. Everything is all nice and clean, if she hates my guts and doesn't want to see me again then who cares.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Presex people bust into Shrike's room.
"You are under arrest for a sexual encounter you will commit in 48 hours!"
Seems plausible.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
:eek:
Ouch.... That would color your perception I guess. What kind of age ranges?
14 to 19.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
They are as far as that goes... :p
Let's have some more people like me here! :D
People like you will be the end of the human race....
I'd like to see you talk like this after you... were in the company of a woman... for say... I dunno.... one night?
-
Originally posted by Thorn
People like you will be the end of the human race....
I'd like to see you talk like this after you... were in the company of a woman... for say... I dunno.... one night?
He'd probably end up doing her taxes.
-
*Looks around*
Nobody has anything worthwhile to say about this?
Hmmm, kinda unsettling when you consider that at some point in your life you're going to have to deal with it.
Lets start with a basic fact that I've always found pretty interesting. Most women like to go out with jerks.
You know, the kind of asshole who treats them like crap, he's usually loud, abusive and manipulative but the girl still clings to him like he's a pair of designer shoes. Now any guy would think 'What the hell are you at? Get out of there' because we're predominantly driven by logic. No so with the fairer sex, empathy and emotions are their decision making tools (which is why I think CP5670 regards the whole affair as being somewhat stupid).
In comparison you have the guy at the other end of the spectrum, he's really really nice. He pulls out chairs, gives compliments and is generally an all around gentleman. A better choice you might think but not so with females, the nice guy is seen as predictable and boring, he'll generally go along with her wishes. In short, he's making every effort to make her happy.
Took me ages to figure this one out in my head jerks = good, nice guys = bad. Looks pretty dumb until you see through to what actually is driving Jane Doe. They aren't actually looking for an asshole, they want a challenge. Ever notice the way some girls pine over guys who for the most part are uninterested or inaccesable (best example - gay guys!). They actually like to do the chasing, strange when you consider that girls expect us to ask them out. The nice guy would think it 'ungentlemanly' to be so forward and ultimately that's what shoots them down from the start. Ironic that in order to be more 'attractive' you have to put in less effort eh?
-
So deliver some selections from it.
Actually the stuff is in my head as logic chains. :D Very precisely, many parts of human affairs can be seen to be contradictory, but sex is among the worst since it has some of the most glaring of inconsistencies, rivaled only by religion. It is of particular interest to note that contemporary society has developed extremely dualistically on the issue of sex, as can be seen in the languages, laws, crimes, pastimes, etc. of today, - people both love and abhor it simultaneously - which is one of the things that establishes the numerous contradictions. The rate of change seems to be in the same direction as well for both sides of thought, but I think that this is just a temporary effect that can be explained by the fading of religion, and it too should go away in a few centuries. Also, quite a few problems with modern society can be traced to sex in some way or another, so these would be a no longer be an issue in some 500 years or so.
If you were logical, you would see that logic states that reproduction though existing methods is the most effective way. Due to this our physological makeup actually encourages it, very forcefully during the mid teenage years, i refuse to believe what your saying is the truth, its physically impossible unless you,ve got some hormonual(sp i know) problem.
How the heck are existing methods the most effective way? Like you say, we are born to think this way, but that may not necessarily be the best way around. (we are probably also born to be have many of the attributes commonly thought of as bad, such as greed or jealousy, hehe :D) I of course "intuitively" feel that sex is necessary just as all you do, but I have long since learned that intuition is a load of crap and one must rely on rigorous proof to determine anything. Cloning is the most effective way to reproduce now that we have almost reached the end of a technological era, especially since a clone can be engineered to increase productive output. Also, I have been hearing that artificial fertilization methods are just starting to come out, so this would be a logical bridge between sex and cloning.
unsafe - stupid - sex to safe sex
Like there is a difference. :p :D
People like you will be the end of the human race....
Define "human race" more precisely. :p
I'd like to see you talk like this after you... were in the company of a woman... for say... I dunno.... one night?
hehehe; I have been told this an incredible number of times over the last two years, but they don't know me... ;7
Now, I'm not gonna say its a big Jerry Springer episode here, but magic S or the L word is used in about every other conversation you get into. Depends on the part of the country. Go farther north and east or into california it is more openly tolerated than let's say in Alabama, Texas, or Virginia.
Yes, I have noticed this as well. It comes up all over the place, and this is especially apparent in the workings of colloquial language. Anyway, it is good to see that not everyone is a stupid sex addict around here. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Define "human race" more precisely. :p
Let me put it this way, if everyone thought like you, first of all it would be boring as hell, and secondly, no one would reproduce, our society would cease to exist, the last generation of people would die off, and that would be it, no more.
hehehe; I have been told this an incredible number of times over the last two years, but they don't know me... ;7[/B]
Okay, riddle me this.. How can you not like something that you've never tried?
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
*Looks around*
Nobody has anything worthwhile to say about this?
Hmmm, kinda unsettling when you consider that at some point in your life you're going to have to deal with it.
Lets start with a basic fact that I've always found pretty interesting. Most women like to go out with jerks.
You know, the kind of asshole who treats them like crap, he's usually loud, abusive and manipulative but the girl still clings to him like he's a pair of designer shoes. Now any guy would think 'What the hell are you at? Get out of there' because we're predominantly driven by logic. No so with the fairer sex, empathy and emotions are their decision making tools (which is why I think CP5670 regards the whole affair as being somewhat stupid).
In comparison you have the guy at the other end of the spectrum, he's really really nice. He pulls out chairs, gives compliments and is generally an all around gentleman. A better choice you might think but not so with females, the nice guy is seen as predictable and boring, he'll generally go along with her wishes. In short, he's making every effort to make her happy.
Took me ages to figure this one out in my head jerks = good, nice guys = bad. Looks pretty dumb until you see through to what actually is driving Jane Doe. They aren't actually looking for an asshole, they want a challenge. Ever notice the way some girls pine over guys who for the most part are uninterested or inaccesable (best example - gay guys!). They actually like to do the chasing, strange when you consider that girls expect us to ask them out. The nice guy would think it 'ungentlemanly' to be so forward and ultimately that's what shoots them down from the start. Ironic that in order to be more 'attractive' you have to put in less effort eh?
How true, how true....but I have found a few that don't think this way. Strangly though, one of them is only 4' 11".
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
Insert big longwinded (:p) explanation here
Oddly enough, I havent found that... The way I see it, is the idiots generally stay together...
-
Let me put it this way, if everyone thought like you, first of all it would be boring as hell, and secondly, no one would reproduce, our society would cease to exist, the last generation of people would die off, and that would be it, no more.
Actually, while sex was indeed necessary up to now, the cloning and other artificial systems will invalidate it very soon. And it would actually be interesting as hell because then everyone would focus on other things, such as the pursuit of knowledge. ;7
Okay, riddle me this.. How can you not like something that you've never tried?
The theory of course! Same way that while nobody has been to the center of the sun, scientists have a rough idea of what's in there. :D
-
Originally posted by Thorn
Oddly enough, I havent found that... The way I see it, is the idiots generally stay together...
*Boom! Thorn shoots potentially interesting point in face and moves on.*
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
*Boom! Thorn shoots potentially interesting point in face and moves on.*
Eh? I was just stating what I noticed....
Or maybe I wasnt clear enough...
I mean the loud mouthed jerk guys tend to go out with the *****y women... and they seem to get along fine...
-
an0n's opinions on the subject
Cloning doesn't work. It's lengthy, complicated and expensive. Not to mention the defects, the chances of miscarriage by the surrogate mother, stagnation of the gene pool. Sex is quite simply the best way to reproduce. It's slow enough to allow prepartaion for the child as well as maintain manageable population levels (in theory) and is easy enough so that if all but a few hundred people were wiped out, the world could be repopulated.
Human Race: This is put out by the church and is quite frankly racist. They say that tampering with the genome to improve people is immoral and the result is not a true human but a perversion of science. Bull****. Culture, ideology and fundamental ways of life are what make up the human race. Making people faster, stronger, smarter and more resistant to disease may be interfering with nature but it's no more interfering than spray crops and the results are far more beneficial to the survival of the human race. For it is not our genes that make us human but our beliefs and history, the church and activist groups either don't seem the picture, see inciting public outrage as a way to gain power or are simply so stupid that they do not understand a simple fact. The human genome changes naturally. You can wipe out all the genetically altered people and have a 'pure' human race but if that alteration is in our dna then eventually it will surface again. Eg, If there were super-smart chimp and you killed them, eventually more would be born and the smart ones would survive, but if you kill the normal chimps then the smart ones survive anyway. What I'm trying to say is that everything evolves, no matter how hard you fight it and the human race will not always be the same as we are now so speeding up nature is not wrong. But still, cloning is inefficient.
I seem to have lost my point somewhere along the way. Meh.
-
Sure, it is currently expensive and risky, but that is always the case with new technology. Given the potential benefits (like I said, you can have a customized human designed to be far more efficient than we are), the demand will go up over time while the costs descend due to better manufacturing processes, and so like I said, it will replace sex over the centuries.
And the church opinion is indeed a bunch of BS; actually, if you think about it, we cannot do anything unnatural by definition because we are a part of nature (that is, the universe) and thus everything we do will be equally natural. (computers, war, cloning, whatever) This is how the holistic system of thought works. ;) :D
-
Personally I think they should engineer some Storm Troopers and attack Vatican City. It'd be somewhat ironic.
And you can't mass produce people otherwise you'd end up ****ing the gene-pool. Eventually you'd have millions of people with similar DNA and they would be incapable or reproducing naturally. And I think having just about every single land dwelling mammal using the sperm and womb method is a pretty good endorsement for getting it on. You simply cannot beat nature. You may be able to improve on it marginally but generally, nature knows best. After all, things have reached a nice balance over the last 12 billion years.
-
But we are nature, so anything we do is also nature. This "nature knows best" thing is fine, but that is because nothing else exists in the absolute universe, so there is not much to choose from. :p You would still have people reproducing "naturally" (or rather a society reproducing itself, since reproduction has moved from the individual scale to a group scale; same will happen with cognition over time), but in a different from, since everything is natural; there is no fundamental distinction between "natural" and "artificial."
Personally I think they should engineer some Storm Troopers and attack Vatican City. It'd be somewhat ironic.
hehe that would be cool... :D
-
Okay, think of it this way. We start expanding beyond the Earth and manufacture million and millions of people to fill our conquered planets and fight our intergalactic wars. They wouldn't be human, they'd be drones. But anyway, everntually there'd come a time when people were forced to do without technology (probably due to some lack of resources). What then?
You must maintain your natural abilities so that you've got something to fall back on should playing God fail.
-
Yes, but the end of the universe would come before we run out of resources. :D If we remain like the other species, we will evolve into something else, far, far before the resources become a problem. :p
-
Sex is integral to evolution...
-
Why does everyone seem to think transcendence is a real possibillty? I think the nearest we'll ever achieve is putting our brain patterns into a computer and running all our **** by remote.
-
Sex is integral to evolution...
While that is not necessarily true, if we assume it is, then that is all the more reason to drop it. :p :D
Why does everyone seem to think transcendence is a real possibillty? I think the nearest we'll ever achieve is putting our brain patterns into a computer and running all our **** by remote.
This is precisely what everyone in the world said about flying in the air about 150 years ago. :D There is more evidence to suggest that it is possible rather than the alternative.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
While that is not necessarily true, if we assume it is, then that is all the more reason to drop it.
Find a better, more.. pleasing way of doing it, and I'm sure everyone will drop it...
It ensures variety, no two offspring will be alike, even with twins, there are always differences...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
This is precisely what everyone in the world said about flying in the air about 150 years ago. :D There is more evidence to suggest that it is possible rather than the alternative.
Yeah. Right.
Presuming that this is true, what makes you think we'll even survive long enough to visit Mars, let alone transcend to a higher plane. And also, what then? We just drift around for all eternity? That'd suck.
-
Find a better, more.. pleasing way of doing it, and I'm sure everyone will drop it...
It ensures variety, no two offspring will be alike, even with twins, there are always differences...
The human brains can be engineered such that they find cloning much more pleasing than sex. :D (pleasure is one of the most variable things in human affairs) As for the variety bit, the exact same thing can be done with the proper kind of cloning, but the only thing that we really need differences in is modes of thought; all else is unimportant.
Yeah. Right.
Presuming that this is true, what makes you think we'll even survive long enough to visit Mars, let alone transcend to a higher plane. And also, what then? We just drift around for all eternity? That'd suck.
Because we have survived up to this point. On the flip side, what makes you think that we will not? :D It is certainly a possibility that we will all die out shortly, but keeping this sex crap is not going to do anything to shift the probabilities. And what then? We seek knowledge, what else? Anyway, let's stay on topic. :p
-
Pfff. I'm all for genetic engineering but cloning is just plain stupid. Why spend money on lab equipment when you can just show Jessica Alba stripping and immediately double the worlds conception rates.
Having a world full of super-men would be great, but having a world full of Rock bodies and Hawkins brains would suck ass.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Because we have survived up to this point. On the flip side, what makes you think that we will not? :D It is certainly a possibility that we will all die out shortly, but keeping this sex crap is not going to do anything to shift the probabilities. Let's stay on topic. :p
Personally I'd prefer straight out, oblivion welcoming death than transcendence.
Sex is more efficient than cloning and is far easier.
-
Pfff. I'm all for genetic engineering but cloning is just plain stupid. Why spend money on lab equipment when you can just show Jessica Alba stripping and immediately double the worlds conception rates.
Bah, you are thinking like the US military did before war planes became mainstream. :p The answer to the why part is that the new type can be much more advanced for productive output. And who is this Alba?
Having a world full of super-men would be great, but having a world full of Rock bodies and Hawkins brains would suck ass.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rock bodies;" we would be able to move around fine utilizing the current system for some time. There will be a time when that changes around as well, but that will come much later.
Personally I'd prefer straight out, oblivion welcoming death than transcendence.
Ah, so you are a nihilist then. :D Nihilism does have some merits, but there are a few contradictions that arise from that system of thought. Still, next to this "scientific rationalism," I would rank it second-best. :nod:
Sex is more efficient than cloning and is far easier.
Yes, at the moment. Just as doing a complicated math calculation was more efficient and easier on paper than on a computer 50 years ago. :p
-
Have you ever taken biology at school? Studied genetics of any sort? Even the basics?
I suggest you do if you havent yet..
-
Of course I have (had to for school; crappy subject), but how does that support your argument? :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Bah, you are thinking like the US military did before war planes became mainstream. :p The answer to the why part is that the new type can be much more advanced for productive output. And who is this Alba?
~-=™! Jessica Alba. Dark Angel. Check the LW/WS hottie thread. !™=-~
I'm not sure what you mean by "rock bodies;" we would be able to move around fine utilizing the current system for some time. There will be a time when that changes around as well, but that will come much later.
~-=™! The Rock. As in the WWF guy. I was saying that supermen=good, but million of people who are just as clever and strong as each other is stupid. !™=-~
Ah, so you are a nihilist then. :D Nihilism does have some merits, but there are a few contradictions that arise from that system of thought.
~-=™! I am aware of the contradictions but they are inconsequential !™=-~
Yes, at the moment. Just as doing a complicated math calculation was more efficient and easier on paper than on a computer 50 years ago. :p
~-=™! So you're telling me that you can clone someone while drunk and stoned off your ass at 2am while eating a kebab in the back seat of your car? Yeah, right. !™=-~
-
Jessica Alba. Dark Angel. Check the LW/WS hottie thread.
I see. another one of those idiots. :p
The Rock. As in the WWF guy. I was saying that supermen=good, but million of people who are just as clever and strong as each other is stupid.
How is it stupid? What we are headed for though is more in the way of specialization, where all the billions are equally smart but at different subjects.
I am aware of the contradictions but they are inconsequential.
ha! Contradictions are exactly what destroy a system. If you don't mind them, what is wrong with Al Qaeda Islam? :p :D
So you're telling me that you can clone someone while drunk and stoned off your ass at 2am while eating a kebab in the back seat of your car? Yeah, right.
:wtf: Are you on crack or something? That made no sense at all. What I was saying is that there is no simple way to determine for sure what system is best for a purpose in an infinite pool; only whether one is better or not than another.
-
an0n's interpretation:
Paper was good until computers came along
IE
Cloning is easier/more efficient than sex
an0n's response:
You can knock someones up pretty damn easy.
-
I cannot see how that response had anything to do with the interpretation. :p
Anyway, I am off to do some gaming now, but I will be back in a few hours. :D ;7
-
You can knock someone up while drunk and stoned off your ass at 2am while eating a kebab in the back seat of your car. But you have to put time, money and resources into cloning.
-
Ah, so "knock up" means to have sex; why didn't you say so? It might be harder (right now anyway; that will change later on) but the benefits are also higher; the artificial human would be specially designed to suit a certain purpose and thus would be better at its task than an offspring of sex.
-
So you're restricting free will in order to increase productivity. Enviable, but misguided. We have computers to do such things. The ideal world would not be one where everyone had a specific, predetermined function. It would be a world where people no longer needed to bother with work and maintainence of society and could pursue the arts and the development of science. You take away free will and you take away innovation. You got 10 billion uber-men exactly the same and eventually you run out of ideas. Let the robots defend the Earth while we explore being human.
And Knock Up means to concieve.
-
Hmmm sorry I wasn't around this weekend I seemed to have missed an interesting thread.
Since my GF came into town for the weekend ........I was too busy relating to the topic of this thread that I didn't even know about :D
-
This thread only started today.
Four and a half hours ago actually.
-
Can we get off the whole world dominated by clones, and back to something that is in use today?
-
You mean, sex?
-
So you're restricting free will in order to increase productivity. Enviable, but misguided. We have computers to do such things. The ideal world would not be one where everyone had a specific, predetermined function. It would be a world where people no longer needed to bother with work and maintainence of society and could pursue the arts and the development of science. You take away free will and you take away innovation. You got 10 billion uber-men exactly the same and eventually you run out of ideas. Let the robots defend the Earth while we explore being human.
The robot and the human is probably fundamentally the same thing though, so they will at some point merge. (see The Age of Spiritual Machines) Free will in that sense cannot really be said to exist; it is most likely either a complicated sequence of chemical reactions within the brain or random particle movements (or both), both of which can be replicated in a robot, as can be this "innovation." There should be no difference between work and leisure here, since both would amount to the same thing in the end; people could be made to like thinking so that they do think. The "uber men" will all be the same physically (and there will be no difference between the man and the robot), but they will all be designed to think using different procedures (determined by whatever makes up the "free will"), thus attacking problems from different angles. What you are saying is true for the current social era, which will probably last another few thousand years, but it does not hold outside of that. Also, the concept of "being human" is one of these intuitive pieces of nonsense that most people believe to be true; being human and being uh, non-human are the same thing. :p :D
And Knock Up means to concieve.
okay whatever, same thing. :p
Can we get off the whole world dominated by clones, and back to something that is in use today?
I like clones better. :D
-
Ok...cloning replacing sex is probably the single worst move that the human race can undertake (a close second involves the burning of fossil fuels).
But I'm not going to go after cloning methods...lets look at it another way around. Our ENTIRE social, mental, physical system is designed around procreation. Everything we do every day of the year is somehow influenced by sex. Take that out of the equation and you create a serious serious imbalance.
There are litterally thousands of examples that I could come up with off the top of my head...but seriously...go through a day and keep a mental note to figure out how nearly every action you take is related.
From listening to music, to driving down the highway, to having a conversation or thinking to yourself....to dreaming...to playing sports...all of it...we relate to all of that biologically...and the relation is done via sex...the idea of...the goal of...the act of. How could we even think of removing it from the equation?
-
I'd give up sex in a second if I could have a super-clone army.
-
It's pretty funny to listen to conservativist arguments. :D Of course our current system is designed around it, which is one of the reasons it will fall apart, and besides, these cultural paradigms are constantly changing anyway. Also, my daily activities are not really related to sex at all. :p
-
Also, my daily activities are not really related to sex at all.
Do you listen to music at any time of the day? Probably at somepoint. No matter the key...no matter the type of music or the culture its based from....its all there.
-
Actually, no I do not. My days are spent solving math problems, playing computer games and building lego stuff; that's really about it. :D But regardless of that, I think I can find some music that is not related to sex, even though that can be a bit difficult these days.
-
wow that is a crap load of posts in a few hours
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
wow that is a crap load of posts in a few hours
:nod:
You know, these kind of threads do get a lot of replies, which have CP against the topic...
-
Originally posted by Styxx
LOL! 0wnagE!! :D
0wnagE p0rn? That's a naked goat of justice or sufing??? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, while sex was indeed necessary up to now, the cloning and other artificial systems will invalidate it very soon. And it would actually be interesting as hell because then everyone would focus on other things, such as the pursuit of knowledge. ;7
well people would still have sex for fun.
*runs out of thread never to return*:eek:
-
Ok, I've read 1st and a half of 2nd pages of this... Its nothing more but ****ING SPAMMING!!!! What about ppl with real troubles...?!
Anyway... what's the cheapest way from slovenia to NL, i don't have quite alot of money, and i really want to see my GF again, I don't like long relationships; no kissing and no ";7" It's bad :( I miss her :(.
See finaly one :lol::lol: mwahahaha :lol::lol:
-
Courier job probably. Or pretending to be a 17 year old nympho in chat-rooms and getting some sicko to buy you tickets over the internet.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I'd give up sex in a second if I could have a super-clone army.
I wuoldn't. Hell no. No way... Sex is the single thing thats keeping me sane these days... ;) :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
Courier job probably. Or pretending to be a 17 year old nympho in chat-rooms and getting some sicko to buy you tickets over the internet.
meh:p and i'm already trying to get a job... but every job requires driving licence... and i'm only 16 :(
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
I wuoldn't. Hell no. No way... Sex is the single thing thats keeping me sane these days... ;) :D
Duh: Clone Army - Sanity = The Whole point
IL: Just chat some wierdo up on the chat rooms and get him to buy you a free holiday.
-
Originally posted by Infested_Larva
meh:p and i'm already trying to get a job... but every job requires driving licence... and i'm only 16 :(
Try a supermarket, you don't need to drive a car in a supermarket, unless you like gas, oil and battery accid on your food.
I think sex is a good thing. For fun and for reproduction.
I personely don't want childeren, so my G/F takes the pill and i use rubbers. Ofcourse acidents can still happen. As for the asshole type of guy and gentlemen, i am a bit of both i can be a asshole but when needed i can be a gentlemen.
Note to self: Allot can happen when sleeping.
Conclusion: don't sleep.
-
Originally posted by darkage
Note to self: Allot can happen when sleeping.
Conclusion: don't sleep.
What about 2 hours nap :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
people could be made to like thinking so that they do think. The "uber men" will all be the same physically (and there will be no difference between the man and the robot), but they will all be designed to think using different procedures (determined by whatever makes up the "free will"), thus attacking problems from different angles.
You know, I find this really disturbing. I am definately a proponent of genetic enhancement (I'd love to be a Draka :D) but it is self-defeating to destroy diversity for some nebulous purpose. I'm only really attracted to white girls, but I don't say we should turn everyone into tall, pale blondes. Diversity is a winning strategy, socially and evolutionarily.
I had a question for CP, but I'm not sure how well some people would take the bluntness the question would require...
-
Originally posted by darkage
Note to self: Allot can happen when sleeping.
Conclusion: don't sleep.
I'm up to 20 hours and still fresh.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I had a question for CP, but I'm not sure how well some people would take the bluntness the question would require...
Ask it anyways :p
-
most i've done is 23 ....
Anon
I'm up to 20 hours and still fresh.
How fresh? ;)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
How fresh? ;)
Lemony.
Most I've done is......err...3 days kinda. I had like 20 mins through the 3 days due to some late-night shenanigins in the hotel and some ****ers on the bus trying to rape me while I was asleep, thus no sleep.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I'm up to 20 hours and still fresh.
How many gallons of coffee did you need to stay up that long?and indeed how fresh are you after that time?:D
-
****ers on the bus trying to rape me
poor aNon, too fresh for his own good....
-
All I've been on so far is Coke (as in Cola) and Melon.
There were these creppy girls sitting across the isle and they kept 'touching' me and my pals while we tried to sleep, putting stuff in our mouths and ****. I decided to be kind and take Rapist-Stabbing-Duty™ for the whole trip.
-
if only girls would do that to me....... alas...
-
:lol:
I've lasted 9 days without sleep, trust me, it's no picnic. You start to see things, hear things. School was a blast...... I won the bet though.
-
I once started thinking I was a german WW2 fighter pilot and was being chased by Spitfires while I was in the shower. Then I thought it was like 4 am when it was only 11pm and started freaking out. It was cooool.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Then I thought it was like 4 am when it was only 11pm and started freaking out.
I do that every night :wtf:
-
lol 9 days....???? dayum thas a looong time w/o sleep man
(lol there goes the better sex thread)
-
My longest was 3 days, indeed you start to say, hear, see funny ****. I was decleared crazy at school. ( Don't ask me how i got there ) Wel something good came out of it, thanks to that i have a G/F for the last 9 months now.
Hmm...an0n you still come on IRC? in the Nodewar channel?:)
-
Ok, I hardly had any sleep for 3 days, me and my GF were togeder kissing and ";7" and i kinda felt her toungue in my mouth while walking on the street with her... but we weren't kissing... :p No sleep is so funky!;7 ;7
EDIT:
Originally posted by darkage
My longest was 3 days, indeed you start to say, hear, see funny ****.
Feel... Say, see... hmmm... maybe... it felt like dream... hear... Yah... wierd... I hear her voice while i'm reading her mails and stuff... but only when i'm sleepy...
-
Well, this got severely derailed.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Well, this got severely derailed.
Suprised? Though its gone in a less harmful direction than it could have i suppose... carry on.
-
Let's turn it back into the other direction then. :D ;7
well people would still have sex for fun.
Only for a certain period of time until the next paradigm comes up. ;7
You know, I find this really disturbing. I am definately a proponent of genetic enhancement (I'd love to be a Draka :D) but it is self-defeating to destroy diversity for some nebulous purpose. I'm only really attracted to white girls, but I don't say we should turn everyone into tall, pale blondes. Diversity is a winning strategy, socially and evolutionarily.
Give some logical reasons to support that "diversity is a winning strategy;" it means absolutely nothing on its own. :p Also, we are talking about physical diversity here, not mental diversity; like I said, mental diversity should stay in a certain form.
I had a question for CP, but I'm not sure how well some people would take the bluntness the question would require...
I am listening. :D
I once started thinking I was a german WW2 fighter pilot and was being chased by Spitfires while I was in the shower.
My brother does this all the time; I always see him running around everyone pretending that he is some mega fighter plane and destroying all these other guys. :D
That makes 10 wins. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, we are talking about physical diversity here, not mental diversity; like I said, mental diversity should stay in a certain form.
Mental diversity comes from physical diversity. The brain operates on a very physical level, based on what we eat, how active we are, genetics, and so on. If everyone had the same brain, it'd be kinda weird and boring. And what's wrong with mental diversity? If everyone thought the same or in the same way, it'd be a boring world.
-
Yes, but those factors do little to determine the methods by which it thinks and attempts to solve problems. The main things are genetic patterns and outside cultural influences (which can be simulated by using genetics). And I never said anything was wrong with mental diversity; read my post again. :p
-
[humps Blue Lion's leg]
Sometimes, these things just have to be done...
...And after reading this thread, I'm still not entirely sure what's being argued about.
Except that I'll agree that not sleeping makes freaky things happen in your head. Like sudden urges to go to sleep, and not being really awake.
Oh, and going on aimlessly and not noticing it.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Anyway, it is good to see that not everyone is a stupid sex addict around here. :p
Yeah... we have some stupid math addicts as well... :rolleyes: :p
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
[humps Blue Lion's leg]
Sometimes, these things just have to be done...
Ew....why?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Give some logical reasons to support that "diversity is a winning strategy;" it means absolutely nothing on its own. :p Also, we are talking about physical diversity here, not mental diversity; like I said, mental diversity should stay in a certain form.
I was directing it towards this, why diversity is a winning strategy, based solely on its own. And that mental diversity= physical diversity. (or to be more exact, relies heavily on, is dependent on, is a part of etc.)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, while sex was indeed necessary up to now, the cloning and other artificial systems will invalidate it very soon. And it would actually be interesting as hell because then everyone would focus on other things, such as the pursuit of knowledge. ;7
Yeah, but computers are still completely useless as means to cultural/scientific/technolocgic production. They are a good tool, and nothing else. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
The theory of course! Same way that while nobody has been to the center of the sun, scientists have a rough idea of what's in there. :D
Yeah, right. Just as theory proved that a train couldn't move faster than 47 mph back on the 1700s or else everyone inside would suffocate because of the pressure differential. We might just find that the core of the sun is completely different from what we theorize, as you might find that sex is completely different than you imagine. The only sure way of knowing something is through experimentation, and if you think otherwise you're a fool. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but the end of the universe would come before we run out of resources. :D If we remain like the other species, we will evolve into something else, far, far before the resources become a problem. :p
Hm, what other species that you know of right now have evolved into something else? Specially, what other species that have already reached a level similar to humans have evolved into something else? How can you be sure of that, if there is no known example of any species evolving beyond our own level?
-
Originally posted by an0n
The ideal world would not be one where everyone had a specific, predetermined function. It would be a world where people no longer needed to bother with work and maintainence of society and could pursue the arts and the development of science. You take away free will and you take away innovation. You got 10 billion uber-men exactly the same and eventually you run out of ideas. Let the robots defend the Earth while we explore being human.
Exactly. Just like the Culture. ;)
-
Math is like sex to CP5670 :p.
EDIT: BTW, one of my friend's neighbors has a dog that's so big, it humps you not your leg (The first post on this page reminded me of that)
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[BMost women like to go out with jerks.
You know, the kind of asshole who treats them like crap, he's usually loud, abusive and manipulative but the girl still clings to him like he's a pair of designer shoes. Now any guy would think 'What the hell are you at? Get out of there' because we're predominantly driven by logic. No so with the fairer sex, empathy and emotions are their decision making tools (which is why I think CP5670 regards the whole affair as being somewhat stupid).
In comparison you have the guy at the other end of the spectrum, he's really really nice. He pulls out chairs, gives compliments and is generally an all around gentleman. A better choice you might think but not so with females, the nice guy is seen as predictable and boring, he'll generally go along with her wishes. In short, he's making every effort to make her happy.
Took me ages to figure this one out in my head jerks = good, nice guys = bad. Looks pretty dumb until you see through to what actually is driving Jane Doe. They aren't actually looking for an asshole, they want a challenge. Ever notice the way some girls pine over guys who for the most part are uninterested or inaccesable (best example - gay guys!). They actually like to do the chasing, strange when you consider that girls expect us to ask them out. The nice guy would think it 'ungentlemanly' to be so forward and ultimately that's what shoots them down from the start. Ironic that in order to be more 'attractive' you have to put in less effort eh? [/B]
[color=sky blue]*cuts through testosterone fumes with a serrated machete*
:mad: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! :mad:
All of you LEARN this once and for ****ing all!!!!
ONLY women with low self-esteem chase arrogant assholes who repeatedly remind them of how they are an assemblage of orifices and nothing more.
you observe this behavior all too often because unfortunately most women are deficient in self-esteem....
you want one of these defective women?...go ahead then, act like a dickhead and they'll follow you everywhere
you pull that crap with a high-calibre woman and she will drop your ass so fast it will make your head spin.
A woman with justifiable self-confidence is a rare find indeed. If you are lucky enough to find one, let her know it in as many ways as you can. Feigning apathy will get you your walking papers everytime.[/color] :doh:
[color=sky blue]Edit: Maeglamor, I used your quote but you are not the person who inspired this. I have no quarrel with you. :)[/color]
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Also, my daily activities are not really related to sex at all. :p
You may think they are not, but they are. Your passion for math is just your way of venting your sexual frustration, as is your overly argumentative attitude towards such subjects. You may not even realize it, but it's the truth. Live with it. ;)
-
MOMMY, MOMMY! THIS THREAD SCARES ME MOMMY! :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Only for a certain period of time until the next paradigm comes up. ;7
Hm, point me to the last time when there was a paradigm shift on this subject. Or you assume that, because one said subject may suffer a shift, any other subject might as well? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by CP5670
Give some logical reasons to support that "diversity is a winning strategy;" it means absolutely nothing on its own. :p Also, we are talking about physical diversity here, not mental diversity; like I said, mental diversity should stay in a certain form.
It is mathematically proven that a non-deterministic approach to the solution of any problem is at least as good as any deterministic solution. It is also noted through statistical and experimental methods that in the vast majority of the problems, a non-deterministic approach provides far better and faster results than any deterministic approach. Diversity means non-determinism and is, therefore, better - even under strict scientifical scrutiny.
Originally posted by CP5670
That makes 10 wins. :D
Eh? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]*cuts through testosterone fumes with a serrated machete*
:mad: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! :mad:
All of you LEARN this once and for ****ing all!!!!
ONLY women with low self-esteem chase arrogant assholes who repeatedly remind them of how they are an assemblage of orifices and nothing more.
you observe this behavior all too often because unfortunately most women are deficient in self-esteem....
you want one of these defective women?...go ahead then, act like a dickhead and they'll follow you everywhere
you pull that crap with a high-calibre woman and she will drop your ass so fast it will make your head spin.
A woman with justifiable self-confidence is a rare find indeed. If you are lucky enough to find one, let her know it in as many ways as you can. Feigning apathy will get you your walking papers everytime.[/color] :doh:
True, too true. ;)
-
Originally posted by Borealis
an assemblage of orifices
now that's an elegant mental picture...
I'd say girls "are" like guys, there's some this way, and some that way. Of course their ways aren't our ways, hey, Borealis?
For my part, I'm still not sure what's the greatest mistery for mankind: womankind (mwarf), or my PC...
-
Originally posted by Styxx
It is mathematically proven that a non-deterministic approach to the solution of any problem is at least as good as any deterministic solution. It is also noted through statistical and experimental methods that in the vast majority of the problems, a non-deterministic approach provides far better and faster results than any deterministic approach. Diversity means non-determinism and is, therefore, better - even under strict scientifical scrutiny.
other proof being that species that reach a dead end in their evolution disappear, coz they won't be diversified and won't adapt.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
True, too true. ;)
[color=sky blue]Testify, brutha[/color] :wink:
Originally posted by venom2506
now that's an elegant mental picture...
:D
Originally posted by venom2506
I'd say girls "are" like guys, there's some this way, and some that way. Of course their ways aren't our ways, hey, Borealis?]
[color=sky blue]Motivations are the same. It is only the manifest behaviors that are very different.[/color]
Originally posted by venom2506
For my part, I'm still not sure what's the greatest mistery for mankind: womankind (mwarf), or my PC...
[color=sky blue]your spelling dude....is that misery or mystery? Either one apply.[/color] :p
-
mystery, my spelling is not the pb, rather my lack of knowledge regarding to your language :)
-
Had to bring this back (from page 4).
But regardless of that, I think I can find some music that is not related to sex, even though that can be a bit difficult these days.
This is the way it was explain to me in some document that a bunch of psychologists put together.
In classical music, 1 is calm, 3 is building and 5 is tense. These are the intervals from the first note played. Almost all Western music is based on this concept....immensely more complex but based on this concept...and even some non-western music uses this concept (and even farther than that, this theory seems to apply to other types of non-western music as well). Basically....at the 5th interval...you have well...sex. And the guy doing the presentation was funny as hell about it too...but it makes sense to me.
So im not talking about lyrics...im talking about the fundamentals of how our brain interprets everything around us. We relate to everything and we relate it to our most basic instinct. Its hardwired into us. Remove that wiring and I don't think there would be much left.
-
mmh, there would remain a protoplasm... hmm, a CP ;7
-
[color=sky blue]interesting how they retreat to the infinitely safer domains of math and music theory...interesting indeed[/color] ;)
-
HLP = nerds
Fairly obvious
-
you like blue, don't you?
well, I can understand that CP likes maths so much, but I can't stand he uses is own exemple to assume that everyone should be like he is, and he doesn't even realize how... sad the world would be. Oh, forgive me, happiness is a waste of time, probably.
-
edit....nevermind
-
No, self-pity is.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
HLP = nerds
Fairly obvious
[color=sky blue]I like nerds...why? Well obviously if I'm correcting someone's spelling in a sex thread then that makes me a nerd too...yay[/color] :p
-
i'm not a nerd, so you won't like me, I'm just a crazy french lovaaa :p ( the only one which is pityful with chicks I guess... I might be a nerd after all :p -looking at the mirror... her, not sure, can't make my mind :lol: - )
-
*edit* why cant we delete our own posts again?
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]I like nerds...why? Well obviously if I'm correcting someone's spelling in a sex thread then that makes me a nerd too...yay[/color] :p
I was aware or your nerdiness :p I don't even think I'm a nerd though ;)
But you almost sounded amazed they drifted from sex to math. Like they......knew more about math or something......odd isn't it?
-
I think it's manditory to be a nerd in order to post on this forum...:D
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
I think it's manditory to be a nerd in order to post on this forum...:D
To secretly spam a forum makes you a nerd? Interesting :wink:
-
Evolution doesnt happen without sex, live with it.
Genetically enhancing ourselves to create a uber race is crazy, that -IS- playing God. More to the point, we don't know what it will entail in terms of side effects; an epidemic we don't expect to be a problem could easily wipe out the entire species; we could also find out we forgot to include something later on and the species will die because there will be no further evolution and no sexual reproduction means the gene pool is useless.
CP, you're like the Borg, I don't know about everyone else here but I would find existance as a Borg very very boring.
-
Narol, you're wrong, evolution does happen without sex (read: bacteria), but it happens at a much slower rate, hence, creatures that use sex have a distinct evolutionary advantage. BTW, did you know dolphins are the only other creature besides humans that have sex for pleasure???
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
Narol, you're wrong, evolution does happen without sex (read: bacteria), but it happens at a much slower rate, hence, creatures that use sex have a distinct evolutionary advantage. BTW, did you know dolphins are the only other creature besides humans that have sex for pleasure???
Kickass!!:jaw:
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
BTW, did you know dolphins are the only other creature besides humans that have sex for pleasure???
only other creatures known to :wink:
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
Narol, you're wrong, evolution does happen without sex (read: bacteria), but it happens at a much slower rate, hence, creatures that use sex have a distinct evolutionary advantage. BTW, did you know dolphins are the only other creature besides humans that have sex for pleasure???
meh, they are asexual, which means they split 1 into 2, over and over again...if we go with CP's cloning and mass-producing idea for human beings, what genetic errors (yes, thats how evolution works, it takes advantage of the fact that there will always be small errors in the ribosomes when cells split) that are created won't be passed down, and thus no diversity, everyone the same, no further evolution and adaptation. And as for dophins doing ;7 for pleasure, well, lets just say all smart specieses (specie?) think alike :D.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I once started thinking I was a german WW2 fighter pilot and was being chased by Spitfires while I was in the shower. Then I thought it was like 4 am when it was only 11pm and started freaking out. It was cooool.
I have war flashbacks a lot, even though i aint been in any wars, suddenly in class i'll start shooting and things while screaming "Get DOWN!". I also have delusions of telekenisis and try to move objects with my mind. Im considered insane :).
-
Hehe. I can control the universe with my mind.
*makes wierd "wwoooooh" noises and waves hands*
-
Wow, this thread popped up quickly...
Anyway, I think that you have a definite problem in your world view CP, specifically the distinct lack of an understanding that for all the trappings of society and technology, at the core, human beings are animals, driven on an animal level by genetic survival. Now, you say we clone everyone, and in theory, the body should be happy, yay, perfect genetic survival, you've been copied. But tno matter how many times the rational part of your mind goes over the fact that your genetic survival is assured, and no matter howmany times you go and get yourself recloned there's no way to inform the animal part of your mentality of that. So you will continue to have basic, animalistic sexual urges, and be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Sexual suppression doesn't work, which is why Catholic Priests are always found buggering altar boys. This is the first problem on with your idea.
The second problem comes from genetics - Cloning, or asexual reproduction doesn't work either - relatively simple diseases wipe out genetically similar populations, and the only reason all single celled organisms haven't been wiped out yet is because they're so small, meaning there can be a damned lot of them, and the chances that an individual or group will survive is a high one. Unfortunately, humans are too big, and require too many resources per individual to exist on this planet in the numbers neccessary to make asexual reproduction safe from a species survival point of view.
There are a multitude of other problems, but lets start with these ones, shall we?
-
Oooooo....I've tried to do that before, but it doesn't work :D. Anyways, Narol, it's basically impossible for humans to change even now. I've been thinking about it for awhile and chew on this: For evolution to work, a species must be sufficently low in numbers, and the mutant (that's what they are, yes) must have an advantage. But, due to the fact that our current technological prowess has basically given a fair advantage to everyone that is normal, and a fighting chance for even mentally retarded and phyiscally disabled persons. So, therefore, mutants will be unable to properly propagate their better genes, because humans do not have low enough numbers, either.
-
What happens is the web toed people pass on their genes to their kids and eventually (like 8 generations later) you've got thousands of people with the web toed genes and when two such latently gened people mate, their off spring has web toes and thus the cycle continues until everyone has a small amount of web-toed-ness and half the population has slightly webbed toes.
The drop dispersing through the ocean, so to speak.
-
You know what else is screwing up evolution? Intelligent women (and any female who read this has just gone Kill the Sexist!!! but I assure you, I use the term Biologically,and not socially). Now, women, or more accurately females, choose their mates not based on survival of the fittest, but at least as much on charachter. Hence, the purely physical evolution of advanced mutants has ceased, as no matter how much more advanced you are than other guys, it's not going to help you propogate as much as it should. So what we've switched to is a far more haphazard system of psychological evolution, basically that good character is created by a guys raising, and he will pass that raising (and hopefully the superior personality/charachter) on to his offspring. Unfortunately, with social diseases like divorce, alcohol, stress, infidelity etc. running rampant, there is a very low chance of this actually occuring neatly.
Not that I'm complaining though. I'm ready to admit to not being the most genetically advanced person on the planet, so it's really in my favour :).
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
BTW, did you know dolphins are the only other creature besides humans that have sex for pleasure???
Heh heh...kinky little aquatic mammals. ^^;;
-
It still amazes me that ugly people pair up and procreate.
As an ugly man myself, I personally would never even consider screwing any woman less than angelic in her beauty. And before you say that's stupid, just look at Mick Hucknell.
-
Wow...only about 4 posts that did not go off topic or about evolution, or world domination in the last 2 pages.
Anyways...Shrike as I was saying. I don't like looking at Jessica(She's 14!) at 90 pounds and most of it is from the baby. And then you have David who is married and has a kid and no money, and is only 17. Then Mandi has a kid and she's only 18, Birtney 18 has a kid. Courtney has a kid and no father for it, and she's 16. See my trend here? All these people had kids during school. And you can see why I frown on it. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by an0n
It still amazes me that ugly people pair up and procreate.
As an ugly man myself, I personally would never even consider screwing any woman less than angelic in her beauty. And before you say that's stupid, just look at Mick Hucknell.
Or Donald Trump. ^^
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Or Donald Trump. ^^
*imagines Ivana Trump naked*
Uh.....no.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Wow...only about 4 posts that did not go off topic or about evolution, or world domination in the last 2 pages.
Anyways...Shrike as I was saying. I don't like looking at Jessica(She's 14!) at 90 pounds and most of it is from the baby. And then you have David who is married and has a kid and no money, and is only 17. Then Mandi has a kid and she's only 18, Birtney 18 has a kid. Courtney has a kid and no father for it, and she's 16. See my trend here? All these people had kids during school. And you can see why I frown on it. :doubt:
Wow... And all of these people engaged in safe sex? Now I'm not trying to be offensive, but it's my experience that the most reliable method of safe sex, using a condom, is pretty hard to mess up so long as you know what you're doing. Too many people don't bother to read instructions on the boxes, or haven't had the opportunity to learn how to use them from school or another educational method. As silly as it sounds, you can screw up a condom. I don't mean to pass the blame on to these people, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that each and every one of them used prevention methods correctly and still managed to concieve children.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Wow... And all of these people engaged in safe sex? Now I'm not trying to be offensive, but it's my experience that the most reliable method of safe sex, using a condom, is pretty hard to mess up so long as you know what you're doing. Too many people don't bother to read instructions on the boxes, or haven't had the opportunity to learn how to use them from school or another educational method. As silly as it sounds, you can screw up a condom. I don't mean to pass the blame on to these people, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that each and every one of them used prevention methods correctly and still managed to concieve children.
Exactly.
And Shrike, what was that question you mentioned earlier? :D
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Wow... And all of these people engaged in safe sex? Now I'm not trying to be offensive, but it's my experience that the most reliable method of safe sex, using a condom, is pretty hard to mess up so long as you know what you're doing. Too many people don't bother to read instructions on the boxes, or haven't had the opportunity to learn how to use them from school or another educational method. As silly as it sounds, you can screw up a condom. I don't mean to pass the blame on to these people, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that each and every one of them used prevention methods correctly and still managed to concieve children.
Unfortunate...
-
Originally posted by an0n
It still amazes me that ugly people pair up and procreate.
As an ugly man myself, I personally would never even consider screwing any woman less than angelic in her beauty. And before you say that's stupid, just look at Mick Hucknell.
Or of course Mr Stringfellow.
-
this is a sad, sad thread...
no offense, but it says a lot about the people that have posted in it! :D
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
only other creatures known to :wink:
I think my birds do it also :p
-
Looks like a lot more replies this time around. :D
Yeah, right. Just as theory proved that a train couldn't move faster than 47 mph back on the 1700s or else everyone inside would suffocate because of the pressure differential. We might just find that the core of the sun is completely different from what we theorize, as you might find that sex is completely different than you imagine. The only sure way of knowing something is through experimentation, and if you think otherwise you're a fool.
Yes, but then the experiential bias kicks in, especially for a subject like this, which will very likely influence a human's thinking in a certain direction (this becomes an issue while forming logic statements). Also, what you are saying about experimentation is completely wrong as well, since experimentation is just a form of theory at its very core (yes, ask any philosopher about this :p); in other words, there is no "sure way" of knowing something, and if all the variables are taken into account the two are going to be exactly the same anyway. Theory can live without experiment (mathematics) but experiment is meaningless without theory. Also, I can give you fifty other theories that have worked out almost perfectly in practice.
Hm, what other species that you know of right now have evolved into something else? Specially, what other species that have already reached a level similar to humans have evolved into something else? How can you be sure of that, if there is no known example of any species evolving beyond our own level?
Once again, the theory, which in turn is based on induction. Think holistically and view the universe as one unit rather than a group of discrete units.
You may think they are not, but they are. Your passion for math is just your way of venting your sexual frustration, as is your overly argumentative attitude towards such subjects. You may not even realize it, but it's the truth. Live with it.
Ah! Therefore, your passion for sex is just your way of venting mathematical frustration, as is your overly argumentative attitude towards such subjects. You may not even realize it, but it's the truth. Live with it. :D
I love the way these assertive statements can be turned around... :D (actually, I happen to like arguing, but apparently so do you, so that's good :D)
In classical music, 1 is calm, 3 is building and 5 is tense. These are the intervals from the first note played. Almost all Western music is based on this concept....immensely more complex but based on this concept...and even some non-western music uses this concept (and even farther than that, this theory seems to apply to other types of non-western music as well). Basically....at the 5th interval...you have well...sex. And the guy doing the presentation was funny as hell about it too...but it makes sense to me.
Wait, if you are going to be this general then anything could be related to anything else; for example, the general fifth-degree polynomial equation is unsolvable using elementary functions, and it is related to the number five. Therefore, music is intimately related to Abel's impossibility theorem. :D
So im not talking about lyrics...im talking about the fundamentals of how our brain interprets everything around us. We relate to everything and we relate it to our most basic instinct. Its hardwired into us. Remove that wiring and I don't think there would be much left.
That is not exactly true. As I have said many times here already, this is only the case in the current cultural paradigm; previous ones did not have the same characteristic. Anyway, just "remove the wiring" and instead plug in new wiring. :D
Hm, point me to the last time when there was a paradigm shift on this subject. Or you assume that, because one said subject may suffer a shift, any other subject might as well?
About 200 years ago. Sex was still a part of human affairs but a side thing; nothing even close to what it has become today. And yes, I do assume exactly that, because there is no evidence to the contrary and other theories are favorable, so this is what the induction procedure suggests.
It is mathematically proven that a non-deterministic approach to the solution of any problem is at least as good as any deterministic solution. It is also noted through statistical and experimental methods that in the vast majority of the problems, a non-deterministic approach provides far better and faster results than any deterministic approach. Diversity means non-determinism and is, therefore, better - even under strict scientifical scrutiny.
That only holds when when very little information about the problem is known or more specifically, that it is a decidedly indeterminate question. I would like to see you prove that performing truly random actions has a higher probability of success than following a theorized algorithm, mathematically speaking. :p Secondly, how does diversity imply a probabilistic system? Just because it looks more complicated to us does not make it any less deterministic than a uniform approach.
Eh?
10 sub-argument wins; I consider it a victory when the other guy either comes back but does not respond to that sub-argument refutation or does not come back at all for a while. :D (or concedes defeat, but that almost never happens for obvious reasons) Let us find out if I can add any more to that.
you like blue, don't you?
well, I can understand that CP likes maths so much, but I can't stand he uses is own exemple to assume that everyone should be like he is, and he doesn't even realize how... sad the world would be. Oh, forgive me, happiness is a waste of time, probably.
Like I said before, anyone can be quickly tricked into thinking they like math, even with our current knowledge, and they would thus derive pleasure from it anyway, so it works out even if happiness is taken as an objective.
Anyway, I think that you have a definite problem in your world view CP, specifically the distinct lack of an understanding that for all the trappings of society and technology, at the core, human beings are animals, driven on an animal level by genetic survival. Now, you say we clone everyone, and in theory, the body should be happy, yay, perfect genetic survival, you've been copied. But tno matter how many times the rational part of your mind goes over the fact that your genetic survival is assured, and no matter howmany times you go and get yourself recloned there's no way to inform the animal part of your mentality of that. So you will continue to have basic, animalistic sexual urges, and be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Sexual suppression doesn't work, which is why Catholic Priests are always found buggering altar boys. This is the first problem on with your idea.
Exactly, and every animal is a logical construct of the natural universe. This is what I have been saying all along: there is no difference between an animal and a rock as far as their core laws go. How is this "animal part" of human mentality (or of anything else) any more constant than any of the other attributes? This is a simple case of social evolution; people will generally retain these mental attributes as long as they contribute towards the survival of the individual. Over time, if newer systems become more mainstream and the survival is no longer dependant on a particular system, the thoughts of the people will also change to reflect that. Same reason why animals have slightly different instincts than we do. (where do you think morals came from?) Also, who said anything about "sexual suppression?"
The second problem comes from genetics - Cloning, or asexual reproduction doesn't work either - relatively simple diseases wipe out genetically similar populations, and the only reason all single celled organisms haven't been wiped out yet is because they're so small, meaning there can be a damned lot of them, and the chances that an individual or group will survive is a high one. Unfortunately, humans are too big, and require too many resources per individual to exist on this planet in the numbers neccessary to make asexual reproduction safe from a species survival point of view.
You are looking at the short-term effects of the whole issue rather than taking things from a universal perspective. Let us assume a hypothetical situation: suppose that humans have minimal contact with the rest of the Earth's ecosystem, and everything that goes into a human (food, air, etc.) is thoroughly screened by atomic-precision computers before allowing it in. Also, in the event that something fails, a bacterium gets in and a guy gets sick, he is quarantined from the rest of the population. Of course, the chance of everyone dying out still exists, but it is much lower than a completely "natural" situation. Anyway, what I had in mind for this problem was that the cloning system culd periodically change certain parts of its genetic structure (unimportant stuff that is not directly related to cognitive processes) to have the viruses keep following in a perpetual "evolutionary race." (when they adapt to the new system, change it again) Also, if what you are saying about uniform genes is that big of deal, most animal species on this planet would not exist, seeing as the human attributes a far, far greater genetic diversity than any of those, and even the human falls to micro-organisms.
This topic is getting more interesting now... :D
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
The nice guy would think it 'ungentlemanly' to be so forward and ultimately that's what shoots them down from the start.
Damn, is that why all the girls ignore me? Or is it because I'm a nerd?
-
*decides the thread is pointless and tries to tear it down*
*remembers he doesn't have mod or admin powers*
*puts thread to good use*
*hits on Borealis*
How you doin'? :nod:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Damn, is that why all the girls ignore me? Or is it because I'm a nerd?
Yes:p
-
Damn, that sucks.....
-
Originally posted by an0n
*decides the thread is pointless and tries to tear it down*
*remembers he doesn't have mod or admin powers*
*puts thread to good use*
*hits on Borealis*
How you doin'? :nod:
[color=sky blue]much as I love a good Joey Tribiani impression, today is just not a good day to hit on Borealis. :(
Thanks for the laugh though, I needed it.[/color] :nod:
-
And Shrike said TaS was a spam, at least it was a funny, creative, and sad spam. This is just pathetic.
-
edited by me
-
I have war flashbacks a lot, even though i aint been in any wars, suddenly in class i'll start shooting and things while screaming "Get DOWN!". I also have delusions of telekenisis and try to move objects with my mind. Im considered insane .
woa. I'm not the only one!
Poor Borealis... bad days suck, especially when an0n is hittin' on you. We all know how you feel.
dayum, i go to bed for 8 - 10 hours..... wake up... 80 more posts to the thread.....
-
DAMNIT, lousy Double posting......
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but then the experiential bias kicks in, especially for a subject like this, which will very likely influence a human's thinking in a certain direction (this becomes an issue while forming logic statements). Also, what you are saying about experimentation is completely wrong as well, since experimentation is just a form of theory at its very core (yes, ask any philosopher about this); in other words, there is no "sure way" of knowing something, and if all the variables are taken into account the two are going to be exactly the same anyway. Theory can live without experiment (mathematics) but experiment is meaningless without theory. Also, I can give you fifty other theories that have worked out almost perfectly in practice.
The thing here is, with direct experimentation you have the closest thing you can get to real information when it comes to human thinking processes and, like it or not, what's going in your mind to drive your logic/scientific reasoning is a human thinking process. There is no such thing as purely theoretical analysis, for it would be - at it's to be expected - meaningless. There is a far larger number of complex and elaborate theories being proven wrong everyday by experimentation than theories that are proven right by it, and this (unfortunately for you) falls on the first category. Or you're trying to say that you'll believe a mathematical model over an experimented fact if both are conflicting? :doubt:
Originally posted by CP5670
Once again, the theory, which in turn is based on induction. Think holistically and view the universe as one unit rather than a group of discrete units.
You're applying induction to a problem where it cannot be applied. There are too many factors, and a better way to relate this would be the state machine stopping problem. It cannot be solved until the final computation is reached, and then the problem will be over. If you still want to try to prove that mankind will evolve, go ahead, it'll be a good laugh. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
Ah! Therefore, your passion for sex is just your way of venting mathematical frustration, as is your overly argumentative attitude towards such subjects. You may not even realize it, but it's the truth. Live with it.
I love the way these assertive statements can be turned around... (actually, I happen to like arguing, but apparently so do you, so that's good)
In fact, that little trick o' yours doesn't apply here. Do some research on the field or biologies and psychology and you'll notice that it is proven that the human being as it is today is completely hardwired - physically and mentally - to the act of reproduction. Despite any dreams you might have, you're still a human being and, as such, are hardwired to such thoughts. Mathematical reasoning is not inherent of the human being - not yet, at least - so your reversion doesn't work. Think harder next time. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
That is not exactly true. As I have said many times here already, this is only the case in the current cultural paradigm; previous ones did not have the same characteristic. Anyway, just "remove the wiring" and instead plug in new wiring.
That is all fine, except for the fact that you are still hardwired and, as such, your own thought process is linked to it. There's no escaping - at least not for you. :D :p
Originally posted by CP5670
About 200 years ago. Sex was still a part of human affairs but a side thing; nothing even close to what it has become today. And yes, I do assume exactly that, because there is no evidence to the contrary and other theories are favorable, so this is what the induction procedure suggests.
Nope, there wasn't anything even close to a paradigm shift. Think like this: increasing the clock frequency of a processor is not a paradigm shift, you're just changing its performance inside the same paradigm. The same applies to the example you provided: human reproduction followed the exact same paradigm throughout all human history (being sex-driven), and there is not a single evidence supporting your claims that a paradigm shift is possible. Unless you try to derive that, since other processes can suffer paradigm shifts any process can suffer them, your reasoning loses all meaning. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
That only holds when when very little information about the problem is known or more specifically, that it is a decidedly indeterminate question. I would like to see you prove that performing truly random actions has a higher probability of success than following a theorized algorithm, mathematically speaking. Secondly, how does diversity imply a probabilistic system? Just because it looks more complicated to us does not make it any less deterministic than a uniform approach.
Nope, non-deterministic approaches are as good as, or better, than deterministic approaches for any problem. What you seem to think is that non-deterministic approaches are limited to the "random guessing" way. They're not - a non deterministic approach is any that considers multiple - if not all - paths to the solution of a problem. Look a bit into computing theories and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by CP5670
10 sub-argument wins; I consider it a victory when the other guy either comes back but does not respond to that sub-argument refutation or does not come back at all for a while. (or concedes defeat, but that almost never happens for obvious reasons) Let us find out if I can add any more to that.
Hah, so you're counting eh? I'm just here to bug you, that's what they pay me for. :D
Originally posted by CP5670
Like I said before, anyone can be quickly tricked into thinking they like math, even with our current knowledge, and they would thus derive pleasure from it anyway, so it works out even if happiness is taken as an objective.
Hm, tell me the process of tricking someone into liking math then. I want to use it for... well, other purposes. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
You are looking at the short-term effects of the whole issue rather than taking things from a universal perspective. Let us assume a hypothetical situation: suppose that humans have minimal contact with the rest of the Earth's ecosystem, and everything that goes into a human (food, air, etc.) is thoroughly screened by atomic-precision computers before allowing it in. Also, in the event that something fails, a bacterium gets in and a guy gets sick, he is quarantined from the rest of the population. Of course, the chance of everyone dying out still exists, but it is much lower than a completely "natural" situation. Anyway, what I had in mind for this problem was that the cloning system culd periodically change certain parts of its genetic structure (unimportant stuff that is not directly related to cognitive processes) to have the viruses keep following in a perpetual "evolutionary race." (when they adapt to the new system, change it again) Also, if what you are saying about uniform genes is that big of deal, most animal species on this planet would not exist, seeing as the human attributes a far, far greater genetic diversity than any of those, and even the human falls to micro-organisms.
Heh, the problem with your idea there is, you won't be improving the process by any marging - you'll only be spending time and resources to replicate a process that is already proven effective, just because you (claim that you) don't like it. I can't see the logic in that, and if you look at it closer you'll realize that too. ;)
Your irrational fear of sex would drive you to work great lengths to eliminate it, with no actual gains. That's sounds pretty emotional to me. :D
-
*Agrees with Mr. Sticks all the way*
-
*crazy idea*
Women should be genetically engineered to be atlleast reasonably (for some variety) attractive.
Men however don't matter. Since the less attractive ones generally have more intresting personalities. Unlike women.
-
The thing here is, with direct experimentation you have the closest thing you can get to real information when it comes to human thinking processes and, like it or not, what's going in your mind to drive your logic/scientific reasoning is a human thinking process. There is no such thing as purely theoretical analysis, for it would be - at it's to be expected - meaningless. There is a far larger number of complex and elaborate theories being proven wrong everyday by experimentation, and this won't be any exception. Or you're trying to say that you'll believe a mathematical model over an experimented fact if both are conflicting?
Not if the theory takes all variables into account (the fact that they might be infinite is no real hinderance here since there are indirect methods); in that case, the two will be the same. Although deduction is a human thinking process, the important part is that different humans think differently in other ways, but reach the same conclusion by reasoning methods given the appropriate assumptions and data, and thus it is the most objective system of thought around. On the topic of the ratio of correct to incorrect theories, I concede that you are right, but for a different reason I just thought of. Also, your statement about purely theoretical analysis is one of the funnier things I have heard in this thread; tell that to a number theorist and see how many blows you recieve. :D
You're applying induction to a problem where it cannot be applied. There are too many factors, and a better way to relate this would be the state machine stopping problem. It cannot be solved until the final computation is reached, and then the problem will be over. If you still want to try to prove that mankind will evolve, go ahead, it'll be a good laugh.
Who said anything about physical evolution? That will only occur if the society comes to a complete standstill somehow, but the chances of that are too low to bother about at the moment. I am actually not trying to prove the certainty of anything, but rather stating the most likely possibility given the evidence.
In fact, that little trick o' yours doesn't apply here. Do some research on the field or biologies and psychology and you'll notice that it is proven that the human being as it is today is completely hardwired - physically and mentally - to the act of reproduction. Despite any dreams you might have, you're still a human being and, as such, are hardwired to such thoughts. Mathematical reasoning is not inherent of the human being - not yet, at least - so your reversion doesn't work. Think harder next time.
You keep talking of the human "as it is today," and that is the critical part; we are not interested in the human of today, but the human of tomorrow. There is no definite way to define a human in the sense that we are talking about; suppose someone finds a way of replacing a human brain with a computer while keeping all other parts the same (this will probably only happen after everything else has been replaced, but let's just imagine for the sake of argument). The guy still has lots of human characteristic and thus some would say is still a human, but he no longer needs to have this intuitive feeling. And actually, some part of mathematical reasoning (namely, inductive reasoning, and the ability to find patterns in observed events) must indeed inherent in the human being and in anything else out there, because if it were not so, a contradiction would come up when you think of how the human discovered or invented logic. I am of course a human being of this era, so this will not affect me at all, but who cares about that? :p
That is all fine, except for the fact that you are still hardwired and, as such, your own thought process is linked to it. There's no escaping - at least not for you.
Sure, obviously there is no escaping it for me, but as I said before, that is of really no importance here.
Nope, there wasn't anything even close to a paradigm shift. Think like this: increasing the clock frequency of a processor is not a paradigm shift, you're just changing its performance inside the same paradigm. The same applies to the example you provided: human reproduction followed the exact same paradigm throughout all human history (being sex-driven), and there is not a single evidence supporting your claims that a paradigm shift is possible. Unless you try to derive that, since other processes can suffer paradigm shifts any process can suffer them, your reasoning loses all meaning.
Read my post again. I am not talking about sex used as a means for reproduction - that will go on for a while longer, but even it will come to an end - but rather sex being a part of the mainstream culture. That is certainly something that has become far, far more apparent in the last 20 or 30 years. Regarding the inductive reasoning, let us pretend that we were shifted back in time about a hundred years ago. Man has never gone into space so far in human history. Therefore, following your reasoning, that means that he will never get into space in the future either. Problem solved! :D And I do have some evidence for the paradigm shift obtained from extrapolation of current trends and sociological principles.
Nope, non-deterministic approaches are as good as, or better, than deterministic approaches for any problem. What you seem to think is that non-deterministic approaches are limited to the "random guessing" way. They're not - a non deterministic approach is any that considers multiple - if not all - paths to the solution of a problem. Look a bit into computing theories and you'll see what I'm talking about.
In other words, that "non-deterministic" approach is actually just as deterministic as the "determinstic" one when there are a finite number of paths, and when the number of paths is transfinite or infinite, it becomes cardinally equivalent to random guessing. :p I will admit that I know almost nothing about these computing theories, but this is pretty easy to show from the logic assumptions. Anyway, what you are trying to say is that the entire concept of the scientific theory is meaningless, the converse of which is derived from straight from a logic assumption, so I will not argue on that point. Although it looks like we have another nihilist around here. :D
Hah, so you're counting eh? I'm just here to bug you, that's what they pay me for.
Good, let us keep it going then. :D
Hm, tell me the process of tricking someone into liking math then. I want to use it for... well, other purposes. ;)
The Goebbels technique: keep repeating into a person that math is the king of all knowledge and force him into doing math all the time, and he will like it after a while. :D
Heh, the problem with your idea there is, you won't be improving the process by any marging - you'll only be spending time and resources to replicate a process that is already proven effective, just because you (claim that you) don't like it. I can't see the logic in that, and if you look at it closer you'll realize that too.
Actually, I already listed the benefits a number of times. "Effective" does not mean that it cannot be improved further.
Your irrational fear of sex would drive you to work great lengths to eliminate it, with no actual gains. That's sounds pretty emotional to me.
Recall that I am not preaching about what people should do, since the concept of "should" is pretty silly in the first place, so I couldn't care less what the world does. :D Rather, I am saying what I think has the highest probability of occuring over time if all current trends keep progressing the way they are now. Heck, I think the concepts of fun and leisure will probably fade away as well. (or rather, there will be no difference between things that are fun and those that are not fun) Intuitively thinking, I do not like that, but I could probably be easily made to think that I do actually like it, so that wouldn't mean much. You are bringing a social issue to a personal scale and using that for an argument for the third time; I would point you to the analogy of the biological cells I have stated before. :D
Anyway, keep those replies coming.
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Wow... And all of these people engaged in safe sex? Now I'm not trying to be offensive, but it's my experience that the most reliable method of safe sex, using a condom, is pretty hard to mess up so long as you know what you're doing. Too many people don't bother to read instructions on the boxes, or haven't had the opportunity to learn how to use them from school or another educational method. As silly as it sounds, you can screw up a condom. I don't mean to pass the blame on to these people, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that each and every one of them used prevention methods correctly and still managed to concieve children.
One at the most did not use your "safe sex", even though that is not the term I'd use. And not using properly. I'm not going to ask that, so I dunno.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Not if the theory takes all variables into account (the fact that they might be infinite is no real hinderance here since there are indirect methods); in that case, the two will be the same. Although deduction is a human thinking process, the important part is that different humans think differently in other ways, but reach the same conclusion by reasoning methods given the appropriate assumptions and data, and thus it is the most objective system of thought around. On the topic of the ratio of correct to incorrect theories, I concede that you are right, but for a different reason I just thought of. Also, your statement about purely theoretical analysis is one of the funnier things I have heard in this thread; tell that to a number theorist and see how many blows you recieve.
Hm, you're still thinking about a purely mathematical non-deterministic approach. You should think in terms of state machines (to point one of the simplest examples), or any construct that is able to model real events. Abstract mathematics don't have that capability. :p
About the theorists, well, I'm sure they'd get mad - I'd be pointing to them the very fundamental flaw of their reasoning, and the truth often hurts. It would be like trying to argue that God doesn't exist with a fervorous priest.
Originally posted by CP5670
Who said anything about physical evolution? That will only occur if the society comes to a complete standstill somehow, but the chances of that are too low to bother about at the moment. I am actually not trying to prove the certainty of anything, but rather stating the most likely possibility given the evidence.
Well, then yes - the most likely possibility is that society will indeed evolve. It is your own personal opinion, though, that it will "ban" (or lose interest) in such things as leisure (and sex, on the topic). You don't have anything to work on except your own conjectures about cloning - that must be, from your posts, heavily biased by the current outburst in cloning research.
Originally posted by CP5670
You keep talking of the human "as it is today," and that is the critical part; we are not interested in the human of today, but the human of tomorrow. There is no definite way to define a human in the sense that we are talking about; suppose someone finds a way of replacing a human brain with a computer while keeping all other parts the same (this will probably only happen after everything else has been replaced, but let's just imagine for the sake of argument). The guy still has lots of human characteristic and thus some would say is still a human, but he no longer needs to have this intuitive feeling. And actually, some part of mathematical reasoning (namely, inductive reasoning, and the ability to find patterns in observed events) must indeed inherent in the human being and in anything else out there, because if it were not so, a contradiction would come up when you think of how the human discovered or invented logic. I am of course a human being of this era, so this will not affect me at all, but who cares about that?
Well, we all care about that. There is no way of predicting the human being of tomorrow with our current knowledge. In fact, most attempts at future predictions done up to now were proven to be complete (or almost complete) failures. Your thoughts are just as those of the "futurologists" (damn, I find it hard not to laugh when thinking of that) from the beginning of the century about cities crowded with flying cars and covered in electrical power transmission lines. As I said before (on another thread) you'll only be able to predict that with a perfect or quasi-perfect model, and the only perfect model is the system being observed itself - therefore, there is indeed no way of making accurate (or even reasonable, as it was observed) predictions. Not with our current knowledge.
Originally posted by CP5670
Sure, obviously there is no escaping it for me, but as I said before, that is of really no importance here.
Well, that IS of importance because your own thoughts are clouded by this. You cannot escape this hardwiring, and it drives your very ideas. As I said before, this whole argument may just be your way of venting your "sexual drive". You certainly have no way of knowing it. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
Read my post again. I am not talking about sex used as a means for reproduction - that will go on for a while longer, but even it will come to an end - but rather sex being a part of the mainstream culture. That is certainly something that has become far, far more apparent in the last 20 or 30 years. Regarding the inductive reasoning, let us pretend that we were shifted back in time about a hundred years ago. Man has never gone into space so far in human history. Therefore, following your reasoning, that means that he will never get into space in the future either. Problem solved!
Failed analogy. One hundred years ago, would you know that mankind would go into space?
Originally posted by CP5670
And I do have some evidence for the paradigm shift obtained from extrapolation of current trends and sociological principles.
That still doesn't constitute a change of paradigm - it's just a change on the degree of importance of a subject. You're still wrong though, because even though it may not seem that sex was such an important subject 100 years ago, it was - just on a different level. Apply your own logic here - if every cell of an organism has its own will to move towards a certain direction, the organism will follow. And it was a very important issue to everyone, as much (if not more) than it is today. Taboos tend to attract people's attention, so I'm pretty confident of the second option. What do you think was the real reason behind Napoleon's campaign? ;7
Originally posted by CP5670
In other words, that "non-deterministic" approach is actually just as deterministic as the "determinstic" one when there are a finite number of paths, and when the number of paths is transfinite or infinite, it becomes cardinally equivalent to random guessing. I will admit that I know almost nothing about these computing theories, but this is pretty easy to show from the logic assumptions. Anyway, what you are trying to say is that the entire concept of the scientific theory is meaningless, the converse of which is derived from straight from a logic assumption, so I will not argue on that point. Although it looks like we have another nihilist around here.
I'd point you to a good book, if it was in english. I only have books in portuguese, so you'll have to research by yourself. And no, I'm not saying that the entire concept of scientific theory is meaningless. I'm saying that it's valid, as long ast it's based on perception - something you seem to ignore. As far as I'm concerned, any perception outweigths any model in regards to a determined system. Think this way: you read a scientific description of what pain is. You think you know what pain is. Then you get stabbed in the hand. Now you really know what pain is. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
The Goebbels technique: keep repeating into a person that math is the king of all knowledge and force him into doing math all the time, and he will like it after a while.
Pfft, you're saying that you can make the person tolerate something. Ask any slave if they actually enjoy working all day, eating only what's needed to survive and being beaten almost to death for any "strange" behaviour.
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, I already listed the benefits a number of times. "Effective" does not mean that it cannot be improved further.
Yes, it can be improved - but it's far easier to improve over the current model than to try to rework a whole new model for it. You're just dazzled by all the research on cloning that's popping everywhere right now (as is almost everyone else).
Originally posted by CP5670
Recall that I am not preaching about what people should do, since the concept of "should" is pretty silly in the first place, so I couldn't care less what the world does. :D Rather, I am saying what I think has the highest probability of occuring over time if all current trends keep progressing the way they are now. Heck, I think the concepts of fun and leisure will probably fade away as well. (or rather, there will be no difference between things that are fun and those that are not fun) Intuitively thinking, I do not like that, but I could probably be easily made to think that I do actually like it, so that wouldn't mean much. You are bringing a social issue to a personal scale and using that for an argument for the third time; I would point you to the analogy of the biological cells I have stated before.
The key word here is "think". What you think it's gonna be. You have as much ground for predictions as anyone else here. In fact, a straight-to-the-point analysis of current western society will show that leisure activities will take more and more of a persons time as the basic production and work systems are automated. People seek to increase and improve their leisure time (and I speak of "people" as in "the whole society") and, if the current trend continues, we'll reach a point where we won't do anything besides "have fun". It's you that's failing to see that, trying to mask facts with a personal view. As I said earlier on this post, your own logic shows that the organism (the society, in this case) will move that way. You fail to realize that the vast majority of people doesn't think the way you do (or claim to), and therefore generalizing your own ideals as the whole society's trend won't work.
Originally posted by CP5670
Good, let us keep it going then. :D
See, this proves my previous point. Every single person in this planet wants to have fun, each on his/her own way. Arguing like this is the way you have fun. Messing with you is the way I have fun (among several other things, of course, many of which take precedence). :D
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Poor Borealis... bad days suck, especially when an0n is hittin' on you. We all know how you feel.
*put on robes and collar*
*winks at Virtu, Alikchi and Joey*
Don't ask.
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]*cuts through testosterone fumes with a serrated machete*
:mad: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! :mad:
All of you LEARN this once and for ****ing all!!!!
ONLY women with low self-esteem chase arrogant assholes who repeatedly remind them of how they are an assemblage of orifices and nothing more.
you observe this behavior all too often because unfortunately most women are deficient in self-esteem....
you want one of these defective women?...go ahead then, act like a dickhead and they'll follow you everywhere
you pull that crap with a high-calibre woman and she will drop your ass so fast it will make your head spin.
A woman with justifiable self-confidence is a rare find indeed. If you are lucky enough to find one, let her know it in as many ways as you can. Feigning apathy will get you your walking papers everytime.[/color] :doh:
[color=sky blue]Edit: Maeglamor, I used your quote but you are not the person who inspired this. I have no quarrel with you. :)[/color]
I'm glad someone decided to address this :)
I have to admit I should probably have worded that post a little more carefully or perhaps given a little more detail.
When I said that 'Most women like to go out with jerks' I should actually have wrote 'a lot of women find jerks attractive'.
Jerks by their very nature see women as sex objects and only oblige a female's wishes if they know it will get them somewhere, the rest of the time they do whatever they want. This is often misconstrued as spontaineity, spontainious people are generally interesting or fun to be around. This lack of respect is also seen as non conformist or exciting.
Practically all women eventually take other factors into consideration later in life (late 20's early 30's generally) factors like dependability and suitability as a father figure. The problem is that people are at their sexual peak in their late teens to early twenties and do most of their socialising at this time.
Nice guys are seen as over eager, they are also victim of low self esteem 'if I don't do everything in my power to please this girl she'll drop me'. Someone who agrees with you all the time can become boring or agitating.
Another factor that makes nice guys act in this way is the media. Perfect relationships are fairly commonplace in films today, two people meet, he does everything he can to woo her, she does the same and it all works out in the end. This is often compounded by the fact that most of these perfect relationships happen over an extremely short timeframe usually days or weeks.
The media is probably the single greatest enemy of relationships. It increasingly blurs the line between reality and romantic fantasy to the point where people enter into relationships with unrealistic notions of what their partner should be like. I am a big fan of optimism, I love the idea of soulmates or love at first sight but any realistic person will agree that these are exceptionally rare occurances and to expect such a thing from every relationship is ludocris.
BTW Borealis I feel the need to apologise, in reading over my previous post I realised that it was fairly sexist in tone. I was in a cynical mood when I wrote it. Also don't be afraid to state your own views, if you think I'm wrong, say why. Everyone is entitled to their opinion :nod: .
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The Goebbels technique: keep repeating into a person that math is the king of all knowledge and force him into doing math all the time, and he will like it after a while.
I believe the Russians did this, though they had a different name for it - Psychologial Torture (And to the cruelest possible outcome - Maths! :eek:)
Originally posted by CP5670
Over time, if newer systems become more mainstream and the survival is no longer dependant on a particular system, the thoughts of the people will also change to reflect that. Same reason why animals have slightly different instincts than we do. (where do you think morals came from?)
Thoughts change, basic animal instincts don't. 3 billion years of Evolution has left a single goal ingrained into the deepest part of every organism on the planet, reproduce. For humans, and all other sexually reproducing animals, that means "go have sex". Do you honestly think that 3 billion years of evolution can just be pushed aside because something new comes along? It's a part of the Freudian Id, and the Id is unalterable by higher levels of the brain, merely suppressble (to a point). Sex will never die, or even be pushed into the background. It will remain, for the entire existence of the human race, the best and primary way to reproduce.
Originally posted by CP5670
About 200 years ago. Sex was still a part of human affairs but a side thing; nothing even close to what it has become today.
That's simply not true I'm afraid, it's just that you don't live in the times, so you don't recognize it. 200 years ago, rape was as if not more common than it is today, and sex was still a major part of the human mindset. It just wasn't openly discussed. Do you really think that blokes 200 years ago didn't go home and have sex with their wives at least 3 or 4 times a week Of course they did...
Also, you're only talking about Western societies stance on sex, and not the far more open societies in other parts of the world.
-
I'm back! :D
Hm, you're still thinking about a purely mathematical non-deterministic approach. You should think in terms of state machines (to point one of the simplest examples), or any construct that is able to model real events. Abstract mathematics don't have that capability.
Uh, yes it does. Even some of the most abtruse mathematics is finding applications in areas like cryptography and quantum theory; there is no clear line between abstract and applied mathematics. Any of the various branches of mathematics can model real-world events if necessary. :p
About the theorists, well, I'm sure they'd get mad - I'd be pointing to them the very fundamental flaw of their reasoning, and the truth often hurts. It would be like trying to argue that God doesn't exist with a fervorous priest.
So now you are telling me that the whole of number theory is meaningless, along with many other areas of abstract mathematics; I am beginning to wonder whether or not you are worth dealing with. :p Also, if you have the patience and are good enough with arguing, you could debate for a while with this "fervorous priest" for a long time and at some point reach a logical contradiction; he will refuse to accept it of course and either get hung up on small points to mask the loss or start throwing insults, but it will be pretty obvious to both of you who won that.
Well, then yes - the most likely possibility is that society will indeed evolve. It is your own personal opinion, though, that it will "ban" (or lose interest) in such things as leisure (and sex, on the topic). You don't have anything to work on except your own conjectures about cloning - that must be, from your posts, heavily biased by the current outburst in cloning research.
What current outburst in cloning research? It has actually been going quite slowly recently, and besides, when you take the entire period of human existence into account (which can in theory last for trillions of years), it does not seem all that far-fetched anymore to talk about any technological advance given the timeframe.
Well, we all care about that. There is no way of predicting the human being of tomorrow with our current knowledge. In fact, most attempts at future predictions done up to now were proven to be complete (or almost complete) failures. Your thoughts are just as those of the "futurologists" (damn, I find it hard not to laugh when thinking of that) from the beginning of the century about cities crowded with flying cars and covered in electrical power transmission lines. As I said before (on another thread) you'll only be able to predict that with a perfect or quasi-perfect model, and the only perfect model is the system being observed itself - therefore, there is indeed no way of making accurate (or even reasonable, as it was observed) predictions. Not with our current knowledge.
The last statement there is critical. You are assuming that our knowledge will stay mostly the same over great periods of time in the future, and I am not quite sure what you are basing that on, seeing as just about every simple analysis of past events is pointing in the opposite direction. Like I said, these "futurologist" predictions will probably come to be true at some point as long as society does not degenerate, because the full period of human existence is quite long. Notice I have not given a very definite timeframe for my predictions, which I myself am not sure about. (500 years sounds reasonable but it could well be much longer) Are you trying to say that society will stay at its current system for the rest of humanity's existence? :p Lastly, how is the only perfect model the observation itself? As I said earlier, a complete theory is equal to the observation. Think theoretically rather than practically, as the practical view usually disregards the extremely important concept of infinite processes that are crucial to this.
Well, that IS of importance because your own thoughts are clouded by this. You cannot escape this hardwiring, and it drives your very ideas. As I said before, this whole argument may just be your way of venting your "sexual drive". You certainly have no way of knowing it.
True enough, but as long as I can give logical evidence there it would not really make any difference either way. There are probably people today without this "hardwiring" (genetic flukes or otherwise), so if they or, say, a computer accepts the conclusion as likely, then I do not see how that would matter at all.
That still doesn't constitute a change of paradigm - it's just a change on the degree of importance of a subject. You're still wrong though, because even though it may not seem that sex was such an important subject 100 years ago, it was - just on a different level. Apply your own logic here - if every cell of an organism has its own will to move towards a certain direction, the organism will follow. And it was a very important issue to everyone, as much (if not more) than it is today. Taboos tend to attract people's attention, so I'm pretty confident of the second option. What do you think was the real reason behind Napoleon's campaign?
For the second time, I am not talking about how important the people thought it was to the civilization on a purely logical level, but how intimately it was tied in with the other aspects of society. Today, more of the popular culture is based around sex than anything else out there, and as any historian would tell you, that certainly could not be said of things a couple hundred years ago. And for the will part, every human in existence today by no means needs to "want" to cohese into larger units; all that matters is that some of them do. We then reach the point where we have one relatively large unit competing against many smaller and more primitive units, and even if they coexist, the small units will become of little importance compared to the large one over the course of history. For the final part, are you talking about Napoleon's military campaign? That was probably based on personal ambition, like that of the conquerors that came before him.
I'd point you to a good book, if it was in english. I only have books in portuguese, so you'll have to research by yourself. And no, I'm not saying that the entire concept of scientific theory is meaningless. I'm saying that it's valid, as long ast it's based on perception - something you seem to ignore. As far as I'm concerned, any perception outweigths any model in regards to a determined system. Think this way: you read a scientific description of what pain is. You think you know what pain is. Then you get stabbed in the hand. Now you really know what pain is.
Scientific theory cannot be completely based on perception; it requires analysis, and the entire concept of theory is centered on that. (heck, even perception by itself without any theory requires analysis) And your two descriptions of gaining the knowledge of pain are actually exactly the same at a fundamental level. The first one might actually be more accurate if taken to a certain point, because when you experience something your reasoning tends to get influenced in one of the directions. (the rule of experiential bias) The flaw can show itself after a thorough analysis of the logic procedure, but this can be difficult to do in practice.
Pfft, you're saying that you can make the person tolerate something. Ask any slave if they actually enjoy working all day, eating only what's needed to survive and being beaten almost to death for any "strange" behaviour.
Actually, if the guy has been doing it for a long time (i.e. most of his life) he would probably like it as long as he does not know otherwise. There are many examples of this throughout history.
Yes, it can be improved - but it's far easier to improve over the current model than to try to rework a whole new model for it. You're just dazzled by all the research on cloning that's popping everywhere right now (as is almost everyone else).
And I suppose you also think that continuing the current computer processor manufacturing process is better than researching new systems despite the fact that we know its limitations. :p
The key word here is "think". What you think it's gonna be. You have as much ground for predictions as anyone else here. In fact, a straight-to-the-point analysis of current western society will show that leisure activities will take more and more of a persons time as the basic production and work systems are automated. People seek to increase and improve their leisure time (and I speak of "people" as in "the whole society") and, if the current trend continues, we'll reach a point where we won't do anything besides "have fun". It's you that's failing to see that, trying to mask facts with a personal view. As I said earlier on this post, your own logic shows that the organism (the society, in this case) will move that way. You fail to realize that the vast majority of people doesn't think the way you do (or claim to), and therefore generalizing your own ideals as the whole society's trend won't work.
I do have as much ground for predictions as anyone else as long as they can back up their ideas; that's the whole point of argument. :p I agree with you that people will continue to have more and more fun in the traditional sense, but only up to a certain point. You see, if everyone has fun all the time, everyone will be constantly happy, and because the rate of advance of the society is to a significant extent based on the wants of the masses (which in turn is based on how happy people are; for example, a completely happy person would not do anything at all during his life), this rate will slowly drop to zero. Once the zero point is reached people will find a cause to complain about and thus remove the system that brought them to that point, since like I said earlier, suffering in that sense is necessary to further development. See that Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy book I mentioned earlier; it has become pretty famous and addresses this issue quite thoroughly. (and this is one of those things that was published in the 1950s from which most of the predictions have turned out true so far; so much for there being "no way to make accurate predictions" :p)
See, this proves my previous point. Every single person in this planet wants to have fun, each on his/her own way. Arguing like this is the way you have fun. Messing with you is the way I have fun (among several other things, of course, many of which take precedence).
Yes, that is how the current system works, which is actually one of the reasons that it or the society must fall.
Moving on to the next person...
Thoughts change, basic animal instincts don't. 3 billion years of Evolution has left a single goal ingrained into the deepest part of every organism on the planet, reproduce. For humans, and all other sexually reproducing animals, that means "go have sex". Do you honestly think that 3 billion years of evolution can just be pushed aside because something new comes along? It's a part of the Freudian Id, and the Id is unalterable by higher levels of the brain, merely suppressble (to a point). Sex will never die, or even be pushed into the background. It will remain, for the entire existence of the human race, the best and primary way to reproduce.
Yes they do, based on the needs of the animal for survival - simple fact of the evolution theory. Very, very few, if any, quantities in the universe are static in that sense, and they are all physical constants and such things; the universe is a continuously evolving unit, as are its constituent parts. You have given no reasons why sex is the "best" way to reproduce. And yes I do think just that, seeing as the same could be said about the space travel thing I was talking about with Styxx; no species in 3 billion years has been able to even light a fire, let alone launch space-capable vessels, and therefore, going by that method of thought, humans will not be able to do it either. You must look at other factors as well, such as what exactly causes animals (and humans) to retain these instincts.
That's simply not true I'm afraid, it's just that you don't live in the times, so you don't recognize it. 200 years ago, rape was as if not more common than it is today, and sex was still a major part of the human mindset. It just wasn't openly discussed. Do you really think that blokes 200 years ago didn't go home and have sex with their wives at least 3 or 4 times a week Of course they did...
I doubt that, as do most historians out there; maybe 200 years is a bit conservative, but go back in time some more (say, a thousand years) and things will have become even more pronounced in the opposite direction. Besides, if you agree that the issue "wasn't openly discussed," then that is all that matters, since this open discussion is what allows a topic to acquire a place in a cultural system.
Also, you're only talking about Western societies stance on sex, and not the far more open societies in other parts of the world.
Yes, but the Western society has in many ways become the dominant one of today's world; all the other nations are following in its footsteps not only in terms of technology but also of culture to a large extent. (possibly as a side effect)
-
Actually, the further you go back the more sex was a part of society - the Chinese yellow emperor and their sexual customs (very extravagant, they layed out the emperors sexual patterns with his various wives for him), the Greeks and the Romans and their active sex lives (orgies and the like), the I believe Babylonian custom of sending Wives and Daughters to the temple once a month or so to be whores, etc., etc., sex is a major part of every society at different times, and it's acceptance goes up and down in a very long cycle. However, it's part in the make up of human nature is, while not entirely static (as it changes from person to person) is constant in both it's existence and significance.
I also have something to point out to you - look at the general pattern of this thread - you against the world. This, in my mind, is the best example of why the system you propose will never come to pass - because the people of Earth neither need it nor want it, and the minority will rarely be able to gain control in a situation like this.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Poor Borealis... bad days suck, especially when an0n is hittin' on you. We all know how you feel.
No I don't, thanx god An0n never tried that on me :lol:
-
You've never lived till you had a 16 year old hit on you.... ;)
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Actually, the further you go back the more sex was a part of society - the Chinese yellow emperor and their sexual customs (very extravagant, they layed out the emperors sexual patterns with his various wives for him), the Greeks and the Romans and their active sex lives (orgies and the like), the I believe Babylonian custom of sending Wives and Daughters to the temple once a month or so to be whores, etc., etc., sex is a major part of every society at different times, and it's acceptance goes up and down in a very long cycle. However, it's part in the make up of human nature is, while not entirely static (as it changes from person to person) is constant in both it's existence and significance.
Eh, what are you on about? It was Judeo Christianity that started putting the Kybosh on sexual pleasure and later Puritans and now morons in authority like Shrub, Falwell and Robertson.
-
Actually, the further you go back the more sex was a part of society - the Chinese yellow emperor and their sexual customs (very extravagant, they layed out the emperors sexual patterns with his various wives for him), the Greeks and the Romans and their active sex lives (orgies and the like), the I believe Babylonian custom of sending Wives and Daughters to the temple once a month or so to be whores, etc., etc., sex is a major part of every society at different times, and it's acceptance goes up and down in a very long cycle. However, it's part in the make up of human nature is, while not entirely static (as it changes from person to person) is constant in both it's existence and significance.
I've never heard anything about the "active sex lives" of the Greeks and the Romans, but you are actually supporting my argument with the first statement there anyway. There are two possibilities here: the one I was thinking of earlier was that the influence of sex in the common culture was quite high at the beginning, when civilizations began to form, after which it gradually declined over the cenuries, followed by a sharp increase in the last 50 years, which can be explained by the falling of religion; the path will continue to decline once again when this social phase has ended and the rate of change of religious influence has stabilized. (and I doubt religion will last any longer than four or five centuries at the most) The alternative you are suggesting is that the path has been more or less consistently decreasing and so it would lead to the same end anyway.
I also have something to point out to you - look at the general pattern of this thread - you against the world. This, in my mind, is the best example of why the system you propose will never come to pass - because the people of Earth neither need it nor want it, and the minority will rarely be able to gain control in a situation like this.
Do you really think that the current opinions of the common people matter in the slightest? This is like saying, if every individual wants peace in the world, why is there such a thing as war? :D We are attempting to determine the "sweeps" of the social and psychological forces of history to predict future things; your method is analogous to trying to determine a function's graph given only a point or two. Like I said, almost all of the Earth's population will probably convert to the new method gradually as it becomes more and more mainstream, and in the unlikely event that most of them stagnate and stick to their old system, there will be some that accept the new reproduction method at any rate, and they would then essentially become a dominant race. The minority can always gain control by superior technology (or by turning the majority on themselves) and there would be a very vast difference between the two systems here, so things in the long run would turn out almost exactly the same anyway.
-
If you don't even know anything about the sex lives of the Greeks, how can you expect to predict how the future of sexuality is going to turn out? You have very limited experience in the entire field of sociology - your arguments show this - and a very weird outlook on life.
That's like saying you know how to put a computer together, so you can tell us what the next innovation in superconductors is going to be, and why.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
If you don't even know anything about the sex lives of the Greeks, how can you expect to predict how the future of sexuality is going to turn out? You have very limited experience in the entire field of sociology - your arguments show this - and a very weird outlook on life.
That's like saying you know how to put a computer together, so you can tell us what the next innovation in superconductors is going to be, and why.
Exactly. He's lacking the most basic understanding about human nature, and so disregards the whole "human nature" issue as irrelevant on his "mathematical model " (not that he presented one anyway). The thing is, human nature is what leads society, and it will remain as such (even if such nature changes). Unless someone run a worldwide campaign to genetically modify people into not liking sex, his version of the future will never gonna happen.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Uh, yes it does. Even some of the most abtruse mathematics is finding applications in areas like cryptography and quantum theory; there is no clear line between abstract and applied mathematics. Any of the various branches of mathematics can model real-world events if necessary.
Yes, any branch of mathematics can model simple real-world events if necessary. They all require predictability, though, and assume that the conditions postulated will not change.
Originally posted by CP5670
So now you are telling me that the whole of number theory is meaningless, along with many other areas of abstract mathematics; I am beginning to wonder whether or not you are worth dealing with. :p Also, if you have the patience and are good enough with arguing, you could debate for a while with this "fervorous priest" for a long time and at some point reach a logical contradiction; he will refuse to accept it of course and either get hung up on small points to mask the loss or start throwing insults, but it will be pretty obvious to both of you who won that.
Damn, can't you read? I'm saying that any theory that is built upon information gathered from perception is valid, and any theory that was not yet contradicted by perception has the benefit of the doubt. But if perception contradicts the theory, then the theory is wrong. You seem to ignore that, and cling to theoretical models no matter what. Your loss.
Originally posted by CP5670
What current outburst in cloning research? It has actually been going quite slowly recently, and besides, when you take the entire period of human existence into account (which can in theory last for trillions of years), it does not seem all that far-fetched anymore to talk about any technological advance given the timeframe.
Huh, fairly slowly? Now you are seeing it as a local phenomena. Cloning had never existed throughout the entirety of human history, and in the last few years it was devised and practically made possible (even if there are severe limitations as of now), and you're saying that it's progressing slowly... right.
Originally posted by CP5670
The last statement there is critical. You are assuming that our knowledge will stay mostly the same over great periods of time in the future, and I am not quite sure what you are basing that on, seeing as just about every simple analysis of past events is pointing in the opposite direction. Like I said, these "futurologist" predictions will probably come to be true at some point as long as society does not degenerate, because the full period of human existence is quite long. Notice I have not given a very definite timeframe for my predictions, which I myself am not sure about. (500 years sounds reasonable but it could well be much longer) Are you trying to say that society will stay at its current system for the rest of humanity's existence? Lastly, how is the only perfect model the observation itself? As I said earlier, a complete theory is equal to the observation. Think theoretically rather than practically, as the practical view usually disregards the extremely important concept of infinite processes that are crucial to this.
Nope, you're missing my point completely. What I'm saying is that you don't have any basis to do accurate predictions because you don't have the knowledge. It might perfectly be that in a couple of years we make a breakthrough in applied psychology and sociology and become able to accurately predict the behaviour of a large mass of people (think psychohistory), or even individuals, but it's not possible as of now. And I'm not saying that society will remain the same, I'm saying that none of us can make even a far guess about what will happen. You don't know what technologies we will uncover, and you don't know what events will direct society - so you can't predict. Your theoretical model is based on the very notion that you spoke against - it's considering only a small section of the "curve", and therefore cannot be accurate - it's like finding a local maximum. The other flaw with this theoretical model you're "presenting" is that it disregards completely any future research or major event, as it disregards the fact that it's modelling over independent agents that may take any path in the future. Some research on AI would go well with the other fields we already recommended (psychology and sociology).
Originally posted by CP5670
True enough, but as long as I can give logical evidence there it would not really make any difference either way. There are probably people today without this "hardwiring" (genetic flukes or otherwise), so if they or, say, a computer accepts the conclusion as likely, then I do not see how that would matter at all.
Yes, if a completely unbiased person or computer (things that cannot be verified to exist, might I add) says that your prediction is right, based only on logical constructs, then it might be right. Or not, since you are not considering even a small fraction of all the factors involved. What they can attest to is that, if everything goes the way you want, your prediction might become true. Even a slight change on the scenario will throw it to the ground pretty quickly.
(it's still my opinion that your "model" won't get past such analysis, though, and that you are heavily biased by your own confidence in your knowledge to see that ;) )
Originally posted by CP5670
For the second time, I am not talking about how important the people thought it was to the civilization on a purely logical level, but how intimately it was tied in with the other aspects of society. Today, more of the popular culture is based around sex than anything else out there, and as any historian would tell you, that certainly could not be said of things a couple hundred years ago. And for the will part, every human in existence today by no means needs to "want" to cohese into larger units; all that matters is that some of them do. We then reach the point where we have one relatively large unit competing against many smaller and more primitive units, and even if they coexist, the small units will become of little importance compared to the large one over the course of history. For the final part, are you talking about Napoleon's military campaign? That was probably based on personal ambition, like that of the conquerors that came before him.
Hm, actually, sex was always intimately tied to all major aspects of society and culture. Check the behaviour of emperors and noblemen in the 1500s. Check the workings of the "behind the scenes" high society on the 1800s. Check the way landlords acted in the feudal times. You're seeing the macro events, and disregarding the smaller ones that led to those. Any historian would point that, and psychologist would point that, but you seem to believe that what you "think" happened is that actually happened.
And yes, humans don't need to aggregate into larger units. They will, though, if they sense that any of their liberties (in a psychological analysis, you'll notice that every human regards his personal freedom as one of the most important factors in decision making, and this reflect on the "mob" behaviour) threatened, no matter how subtly you seem to think it will happen - and sex is one of the most basic liberties any human considers. You fail to realize that this is what has driven society up to now, and what was responsible for the fall of every fallen regime in human history. There's also the fact that your own "relatively large, organized unit" will not come to exist, but debating this is pointless (you'll simply say "yes it will" over and over, changing words :p).
Originally posted by CP5670
Scientific theory cannot be completely based on perception; it requires analysis, and the entire concept of theory is centered on that. (heck, even perception by itself without any theory requires analysis) And your two descriptions of gaining the knowledge of pain are actually exactly the same at a fundamental level. The first one might actually be more accurate if taken to a certain point, because when you experience something your reasoning tends to get influenced in one of the directions. (the rule of experiential bias) The flaw can show itself after a thorough analysis of the logic procedure, but this can be difficult to do in practice.
No, it cannot be completely based on perception - it still must be based on perception to a certain degree, though, or it's not valid (or it is as valid as any wild conjecture anyone can come up with). Any logic conclusion is just as good as the correctness of its premises, or else you get a GIGO system.
And no, my two descriptions are not even close to each other at a fundamental level. You're assuming too much, and providing little evidence. The first one will never provide you with complete and accurate information about the pain generation process, unless you have a perfectly modelled system - and as I said earlier, it is proved that any perfect model will be undistinguishable from the system being observed itself (therefore, you'll be feeling the pain anyway).
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, if the guy has been doing it for a long time (i.e. most of his life) he would probably like it as long as he does not know otherwise. There are many examples of this throughout history.
Again, no. Did you ask any slave if they like working all day and night and being beaten up for no reason? Didn't think so.
Originally posted by CP5670
And I suppose you also think that continuing the current computer processor manufacturing process is better than researching new systems despite the fact that we know its limitations.
Actually, that's a completely useless analogy. We know the limitations of current processor architectures, yet we don't know the limitations of natural birth (when improved), and we don't know the limitations of cloning processes. It might perfectly be that the natural process offers less limitations than cloning, and then your whole model falls apart. Check some Culture books for a few ideas on how to improve the natural conception methods. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
I do have as much ground for predictions as anyone else as long as they can back up their ideas; that's the whole point of argument. I agree with you that people will continue to have more and more fun in the traditional sense, but only up to a certain point. You see, if everyone has fun all the time, everyone will be constantly happy, and because the rate of advance of the society is to a significant extent based on the wants of the masses (which in turn is based on how happy people are; for example, a completely happy person would not do anything at all during his life), this rate will slowly drop to zero. Once the zero point is reached people will find a cause to complain about and thus remove the system that brought them to that point, since like I said earlier, suffering in that sense is necessary to further development.
Ok, "up to a certain point" you say. You assume that human society will suffer a revolution when everyone is happy and having fun all day, because they have the "need" to evolve. This need you mention has as much basis as all the other arguments about the human being's "need" for sex - you're simply saying that, despite any other factors, society must evolve/advance. You're assuming too much again, without any basis. You believe that people will always have something to complain about, because that's the way they acted up to now. Well, I believe that people will always want to have sex, because that's the way they acted up to now. How is one belief better than the other?
Originally posted by CP5670
See that Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy book I mentioned earlier; it has become pretty famous and addresses this issue quite thoroughly. (and this is one of those things that was published in the 1950s from which most of the predictions have turned out true so far; so much for there being "no way to make accurate predictions")
I'll try to look into it, but since society didn't really change since the fifties, I already know that it didn't make any sociological and psychological predictions. What exactly did the guy predict?
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, that is how the current system works, which is actually one of the reasons that it or the society must fall.
See, there's your bias again. Society must fall. Breaking news for ya: it won't. You simply think that any system must evolve, without considering the simple factor that we never had any chance to analyse a system even remotely as complex as a planetwide human society. You're basing your ideas on a "local maximum" (to make an analogy), and failing to realize that we don't have the slightest idea of how the rest of the graph looks like.
Now, seriously, this is getting pointless. We can keep debating for the literal rest of our lives and won't reach any conclusions, because none of us will ever live to know what will actually happen to human society. Maybe we should agree to get cryogenically frozen and wake up in a thousand years or so just to see who was right. :D
-
It is pointless, its absurd to suggest that society will advance to a point where there is no sex. I have 6000 years of human history to back up my theory that although cloning may become prevalent, sex will always be around, there is no logical reason to remove it other than CP5670 fear of it. If it got to that point, why be male or female? It just wouldnt happen, you'd mess up a lot of stuff, you'd have to strip everything out and build the creature from scratch.
-
If it got to that point, why be male or female? It just wouldnt happen, you'd mess up a lot of stuff, you'd have to strip everything out and build the creature from scratch.
I think it'd be safe to say that we would no longer be human at that point. There is a very robust but also delicate balance that males and females maintain. Earlier generations failed to see that (since females have been largely regarded as the lesser half of the species in most European contexts for several centuries) but I think with the latest round of scientific studies...we are starting to see the strengths and weaknesses of both halfs of the species and why nature has balanced us as so.
-
Yep, thats why i said creature and not human :)
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Eh, what are you on about? It was Judeo Christianity that started putting the Kybosh on sexual pleasure and later Puritans and now morons in authority like Shrub, Falwell and Robertson.
If by that you mean started making it socially unacceptable, then that is exactly what I'm on about.
I've never heard anything about the "active sex lives" of the Greeks and the Romans, but you are actually supporting my argument with the first statement there anyway. There are two possibilities here: the one I was thinking of earlier was that the influence of sex in the common culture was quite high at the beginning, when civilizations began to form, after which it gradually declined over the cenuries, followed by a sharp increase in the last 50 years, which can be explained by the falling of religion; the path will continue to decline once again when this social phase has ended and the rate of change of religious influence has stabilized. (and I doubt religion will last any longer than four or five centuries at the most) The alternative you are suggesting is that the path has been more or less consistently decreasing and so it would lead to the same end anyway.
The first alternative is the closest, but still off. What I'm saying is that sex has always been an intrinsic part of culture and society, but the influence of religion had shifted it's role out of the foreground - not eliminated it. Now though, the influence of religion has dropped away, so the society and culture is reverting to what is natural.
Do you really think that the current opinions of the common people matter in the slightest?
Of course the current opinions of the common people matter! It's the people that make up the society! All a society is is a collection of people with roughly the same views on certain issues.
This is like saying, if every individual wants peace in the world, why is there such a thing as war? We are attempting to determine the "sweeps" of the social and psychological forces of history to predict future things; your method is analogous to trying to determine a function's graph given only a point or two.
I think your mathematical turn of mind is what's primarily responsible for your apparent inability to see why we all think you're wrong - Human society isn't a function on a graph and it isn't predictable, human nature by contrast is predictable, as it's constant. I mean, do you have any idea how short the lengths of time you're talking about are? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you expect this method of yours to become mainstream in a few centuries? A few centuries of advanced technology compared to over two million years of the evolution of human nature? To put it in mathematical language that's 2 000 000:200...I know which one I'd back.
Like I said, almost all of the Earth's population will probably convert to the new method gradually as it becomes more and more mainstream, and in the unlikely event that most of them stagnate and stick to their old system, there will be some that accept the new reproduction method at any rate, and they would then essentially become a dominant race. The minority can always gain control by superior technology (or by turning the majority on themselves) and there would be a very vast difference between the two systems here, so things in the long run would turn out almost exactly the same anyway.
My point in the previous post was that you and your views are currently in the extreme minority - please tell us why you think that your method would become mainstream anyway?
Hmm...looking back over that post I've noticed I've been somewhat...arrogant. I'm not going to back down on any of my points but I will say that I'm not trying to be offensive, or stop you from having an opinion. I simply disagree with you.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
It is pointless, its absurd to suggest that society will advance to a point where there is no sex. I have 6000 years of human history to back up my theory that although cloning may become prevalent, sex will always be around, there is no logical reason to remove it other than CP5670 fear of it. If it got to that point, why be male or female? It just wouldnt happen, you'd mess up a lot of stuff, you'd have to strip everything out and build the creature from scratch.
Speaking of bothering to be Male or Female.
Does anyone get the impression things have gone in the past 40 years from male-dominated to rather female-dominated in a trend that appears to be accelerating at an alarming rate?
Think about it - if, for instance like Ian M Banks explored in his books, your population could change sex at will and back again (over a period of months, of course), how many people in todays' society would choose to be female or male?
Obviously the largest proportion of people in Islamic fundamentalist movements would choose to be male, and the opposite in matriarch structures.
-
Yeah its time to hit back.
-
[color=sky blue]I just have an overwhelming urge to point out that if we were talking about sex in a math thread it would have been locked after a couple pages. Y'all are funny.[/color] :D :D
-
The only reason we do that is to try to get on CP's nerves :p
-
Originally posted by Thorn
The only reason we do that is to try to get on CP's nerves :p
Bingo. ;)
-
[dates Styxx's leg]
OK, this thread's a bit... off. You're all arguing about possibly the least controversial subject POSSIBLE in this general category with a single person whosee ideas have been proven before to have little to do with reality. Yes, logically, all that should work. It still doesn't when applied in real life. Fine, move on, this is dull beyond belief, and I'm not even an active poster.
Now... Public nudity, yes or no? I think it's perfectly good, since there's really nothing against it except deeply ingrained cultural sex hangups (all right, so that turns out to be a big something against it).
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
[dates Styxx's leg]
Eh? :wtf: :wtf:
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Now... Public nudity, yes or no? I think it's perfectly good, since there's really nothing against it except deeply ingrained cultural sex hangups (all right, so that turns out to be a big something against it).
Nothing against it, to each his own...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Now... Public nudity, yes or no? I think it's perfectly good, since there's really nothing against it except deeply ingrained cultural sex hangups (all right, so that turns out to be a big something against it).
No.....for the sake of my own eyes, I'd hate to have to stab them out.
-
Yeah, but see- the only reason you'd mind seeing Grandma or the morbidly obese guy down the street in nothing at all is that you're brought up from childhood to think of nudity in a strictly sexual context- you're trained to associate nudity with sex, and sex only. It's not the first part of that- associating it with sex- that's a problem or in any way abnormal- it's the second.
The Victorians thought seeing part of a leg or arm was risqe (I hate not having my little accent-mark thingies). Same thing here, on an only slightly less puritanical scale.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
Nice guys are seen as over eager, they are also victim of low self esteem 'if I don't do everything in my power to please this girl she'll drop me'. Someone who agrees with you all the time can become boring or agitating.
[color=sky blue]Again, I blame the 'nice guys get rejected' phenomenon on women with low self-esteem. If a woman views herself with contempt, she cannot respect anyone who doesn't also show her contempt. When someone shows her favorable attention and gentlemanly behavior, a subconscious alarm goes off in her head that screams 'defective'. She thinks only someone with something drastically wrong with him could possibly like her. Guys that don't care about her are the only ones that will be deemed worthy. Sad but true.
....but it goes both ways. Both sexes are guilty. I have seen just as many men chasing the '***** goddesses' as I've seen women with uncaring assholes. :wink: [/color]
Originally posted by Maeglamor
BTW Borealis I feel the need to apologise, in reading over my previous post I realised that it was fairly sexist in tone. I was in a cynical mood when I wrote it. Also don't be afraid to state your own views, if you think I'm wrong, say why. Everyone is entitled to their opinion :nod:
[color=sky blue]No need to apologise. I didn't think it was sexist. I just hate to see nice guys wonder if it would be better to stop being nice. Before I figured it out I thought the same. One time I dated someone I worked with and pretended I didn't care. It backfired in a big way. He dumped me for the nastiest troll in the place. It was a painful lesson. I just didn't want anyone else here to make the same mistake.[/color] :)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
[dates Styxx's leg]
Now... Public nudity, yes or no? I think it's perfectly good, since there's really nothing against it except deeply ingrained cultural sex hangups (all right, so that turns out to be a big something against it).
You'd get cold unless you lived somewhere warm.
Then all the people who live in cold places and wear clothes would think the naked people to be strange.
Wouldnt work, unless you fit 6 billion people into the bahamas.
-
Bah, at this rate by the time that the Eurocentric world has gotten around to changing at all from the course it's been follouing for more than ten thousand years, the ice caps will have melted and Alaska will be averaging 80* heat in the summertime.
And that won't be dry heat, either.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, while sex was indeed necessary up to now, the cloning and other artificial systems will invalidate it very soon. And it would actually be interesting as hell because then everyone would focus on other things, such as the pursuit of knowledge. ;7
The theory of course! Same way that while nobody has been to the center of the sun, scientists have a rough idea of what's in there. :D
Why is sex only being used in the context of reproduction, it's still a fun activity for two people to partake in. Just be sensible about it. Pah, knowledge is highly overrated. Unless it's sexual knowledge ;7
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Bah, at this rate by the time that the Eurocentric world has gotten around to changing at all from the course it's been follouing for more than ten thousand years, the ice caps will have melted and Alaska will be averaging 80* heat in the summertime.
And that won't be dry heat, either.
Sadly, scotland supposed to get colder and rainier (if its possible):( , due to a shift in the gulf stream.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, no I do not. My days are spent solving math problems, playing computer games and building lego stuff; that's really about it. :D But regardless of that, I think I can find some music that is not related to sex, even though that can be a bit difficult these days.
Holy dear mother of god. Solving math. ::shudders::
-
This is just getting better and better... :D
If you don't even know anything about the sex lives of the Greeks, how can you expect to predict how the future of sexuality is going to turn out? You have very limited experience in the entire field of sociology - your arguments show this - and a very weird outlook on life.
I admit that I have not formally studied sociology, but I have become acquianted with the various schools of thought over the years, and besides, I can find you several of the leading experts in this field who would have very similar predictions of things, so I cannot see how that would make any difference. As for the weird outlook on life, that is a matter of opinion.
Exactly. He's lacking the most basic understanding about human nature, and so disregards the whole "human nature" issue as irrelevant on his "mathematical model " (not that he presented one anyway). The thing is, human nature is what leads society, and it will remain as such (even if such nature changes). Unless someone run a worldwide campaign to genetically modify people into not liking sex, his version of the future will never gonna happen.
While it is true "human nature" can be said to lead society, it is not at all the type of thing you are talking about - we are concerned about the very core principles and sex is way, way too specific to be one of the elementary values, since it cannot be used to describe all other human phenomena directly (see below) - and furthermore, the converse is also equally true: society and necessity leads human nature as well through a continuous chain. (the best example of this is the formation of morals) Other variables must be taken into account to complete the analysis. One thing that I think is probably true about the network of ideas is that while every idea has multiple (and probably infinite) logically consistent connections to other ideas, not every idea can be derived from every other idea (this is an example of a comparison between two unequal infinities), so not everything can be directly derived from the idea of human tendency towards sex.
Yes, any branch of mathematics can model simple real-world events if necessary. They all require predictability, though, and assume that the conditions postulated will not change.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about; you were claiming a few posts ago that some math is good and other math is meaningless. :p
Damn, can't you read? I'm saying that any theory that is built upon information gathered from perception is valid, and any theory that was not yet contradicted by perception has the benefit of the doubt. But if perception contradicts the theory, then the theory is wrong. You seem to ignore that, and cling to theoretical models no matter what. Your loss.
Okay, that sounds fine, but once again, this is quite unrelated to what we were talking about before. I certainly agree with what you have said there, but it has no relevance.
Huh, fairly slowly? Now you are seeing it as a local phenomena. Cloning had never existed throughout the entirety of human history, and in the last few years it was devised and practically made possible (even if there are severe limitations as of now), and you're saying that it's progressing slowly... right.
It is still progressing slowly compared to what will happen with it in the future, just as any technological development when it is just starting up; this is what I was talking about. You need to factor in not only the past, but also predictions of the future. In the whole period, it is still going fairly slowly, relatively speaking.
Nope, you're missing my point completely. What I'm saying is that you don't have any basis to do accurate predictions because you don't have the knowledge. It might perfectly be that in a couple of years we make a breakthrough in applied psychology and sociology and become able to accurately predict the behaviour of a large mass of people (think psychohistory), or even individuals, but it's not possible as of now. And I'm not saying that society will remain the same, I'm saying that none of us can make even a far guess about what will happen. You don't know what technologies we will uncover, and you don't know what events will direct society - so you can't predict. Your theoretical model is based on the very notion that you spoke against - it's considering only a small section of the "curve", and therefore cannot be accurate - it's like finding a local maximum. The other flaw with this theoretical model you're "presenting" is that it disregards completely any future research or major event, as it disregards the fact that it's modelling over independent agents that may take any path in the future. Some research on AI would go well with the other fields we already recommended (psychology and sociology).
You are starting to sound like one of these fatalistic guys. While it is true that the social sciences have not quite reached the level of mathematical maturity that the physical sciences have, your assessment of their effectiveness is severely understated. It is possible to predict the probabilities of events and weigh them against each other even with our current understanding, or there would be no such thing as sociology in the first place in today's world. Although the specialists in this field are quite divided on opinion in most cases, they all agree that the probability of human society and its culture remaining static as you seem to think is among the lowest around, because the human society cannot remain static in a continuously changing universe and still be a part of it. Like you said, I should study some of these subjects more in depth, and I will do that at some point, but that hardly constitues an argument here; heck, I could just tell you to take some philosophy courses and study the works of past thinkers, but that would do nothing towards refuting any concrete points.
Yes, if a completely unbiased person or computer (things that cannot be verified to exist, might I add) says that your prediction is right, based only on logical constructs, then it might be right. Or not, since you are not considering even a small fraction of all the factors involved. What they can attest to is that, if everything goes the way you want, your prediction might become true. Even a slight change on the scenario will throw it to the ground pretty quickly.
Actually, most of the less likely alternatives have been considered as well; one of the nice things with this theory is that several of the other possibe branches will also lead similar conclusions. And exactly what other factors need to be considered that you are taking into account and I am not? (the workings of the current human are being taken into account, so find something else :D) Also, if everything goes exactly as predicted (and this includes factors that were overseen and not taken into account, since that too is a prediction of sorts), the end result will also turn out exactly the same; I am not sure where the "might" came from.
(it's still my opinion that your "model" won't get past such analysis, though, and that you are heavily biased by your own confidence in your knowledge to see that)
We shall see... ;7
Hm, actually, sex was always intimately tied to all major aspects of society and culture. Check the behaviour of emperors and noblemen in the 1500s. Check the workings of the "behind the scenes" high society on the 1800s. Check the way landlords acted in the feudal times. You're seeing the macro events, and disregarding the smaller ones that led to those. Any historian would point that, and psychologist would point that, but you seem to believe that what you "think" happened is that actually happened.
Wait, just a few paragraphs ago you said that I am disregarding the "macro events" and only looking and the small ones, and now it has become just the opposite. And I have actually not heard of this stuff before, but like I said to Black Wolf, you are unknowningly supporting my argument here for the same reasons I gave him.
And yes, humans don't need to aggregate into larger units. They will, though, if they sense that any of their liberties (in a psychological analysis, you'll notice that every human regards his personal freedom as one of the most important factors in decision making, and this reflect on the "mob" behaviour) threatened, no matter how subtly you seem to think it will happen - and sex is one of the most basic liberties any human considers. You fail to realize that this is what has driven society up to now, and what was responsible for the fall of every fallen regime in human history. There's also the fact that your own "relatively large, organized unit" will not come to exist, but debating this is pointless (you'll simply say "yes it will" over and over, changing words).
Oh, I am now beginning to see where you are getting your reasoning. Here's a counter-argument: it might be responsible for the "fall of every fallen regime" in history, but it is also responsible for the rise of every regime in history, and heck, that of human civilization itself. It has essentially been proven that if the human did not have some sort of fundamental difference in psychology from the other animals, no civilization at all would have been formed. Now we look at the possible causes of this: personal freedom cannot alone contribute to all of it, because then other animals (which also have the objective of personal survival) would have also developed an advancing civilization. Personal benefits for survival is the correct idea rather than personal freedom, and those do not necessarily need to have anything to do with freedom, because if the individual freedom had always been such a sacred thing (as you claim it to be), there would have been no such thing as a civilization in history, - keep in mind that the form of government which maximizes freedom is none at all, or in other words, anarchy - let alone things like monarchies. My assessment of this is that the critical difference is the avoidance to complete happiness, which is the primary motivating force that allows the human to progress. (perhaps it was only a minor genetic mutation from monkeys, but it can explain just about all the differences between animals and humans) Therefore, we extend this principle to today's world: Humans will continue to have sex only as long as it contributes to their survival. Given the incredibly long period that humans have to perfect the cloning system (I talked of this in one of my earlier posts), the probability actually goes much higher than you seem to think.
This is what the core part of my argument is based on: if personal freedom was the only, or even the primary, contributing factor to the analysis of human actions, civilization would not have existed, and this is generally accepted among the academic community as the truth today. (check out a sociology textbook for more info)
And I will indeed keep saying "yes it will," except I will accompany it with some more evidence each time. :D (whereas your supports are mere assertions for the most part :p)
No, it cannot be completely based on perception - it still must be based on perception to a certain degree, though, or it's not valid (or it is as valid as any wild conjecture anyone can come up with). Any logic conclusion is just as good as the correctness of its premises, or else you get a GIGO system.
That sounds fine, but we already agreed that just about every reputable scientific (not mathematical, though) theory out there is based on physical perception to some extent, so I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. (the theories use the percieved stuff as starting assumptions) We are talking about not only analyzing the perceived facts but more importantly, using those to make general theories in an attempt to predict future events - in other words, science - and you said a few posts ago that the second part of this procedure was meaningless, so then science must be meaningless too.
And no, my two descriptions are not even close to each other at a fundamental level. You're assuming too much, and providing little evidence. The first one will never provide you with complete and accurate information about the pain generation process, unless you have a perfectly modelled system - and as I said earlier, it is proved that any perfect model will be undistinguishable from the system being observed itself (therefore, you'll be feeling the pain anyway).
Okay...first the two descriptions "are not even close to each other," and two sentences later, they are "indistinguishable." :p But anyway, what you are saying has only ben proven for models with finite variables and finitely many paths to modeling - it is not known whether or not this still applies to the infinite analogs, which is essentially what the real world operates on. (as far as we know, there is no finite number of procedures to solve a given problem) Besides, a slightly less "perfect" model would actually be better than the "perfect" model or the event, since the experiential bias I spoke of earlier will be much less of an issue.
Again, no. Did you ask any slave if they like working all day and night and being beaten up for no reason? Didn't think so.
If the slave didn't know anything different, I bet he would say yes. (and there are examples of this throughout history)
Actually, that's a completely useless analogy. We know the limitations of current processor architectures, yet we don't know the limitations of natural birth (when improved), and we don't know the limitations of cloning processes. It might perfectly be that the natural process offers less limitations than cloning, and then your whole model falls apart. Check some Culture books for a few ideas on how to improve the natural conception methods.
Since when we do not know the limitations of these other things as well? The probability of our predictions of the limitations of one technology coming true compared with that of the other's is about equal. Also, what is this "improved" natural birth? (remember that sex and cloning are equally natural)
Ok, "up to a certain point" you say. You assume that human society will suffer a revolution when everyone is happy and having fun all day, because they have the "need" to evolve. This need you mention has as much basis as all the other arguments about the human being's "need" for sex - you're simply saying that, despite any other factors, society must evolve/advance. You're assuming too much again, without any basis. You believe that people will always have something to complain about, because that's the way they acted up to now. Well, I believe that people will always want to have sex, because that's the way they acted up to now. How is one belief better than the other?
Correct, although it is not an assumption and had been derived from other propositions. Like I said before, the need must exist to some extent (it could be based on the human tendency against satiation) or else the human civilization could not have come up. From what I can tell you are saying that all arguments are equally true, including logically contradictory ones, so I guess you are a nihilist of sorts, which is fine, but then there is no point in arguing in the first place. (our primary method for narrowing down the arguments is to eliminate these types of theories) Regarding your statement about people having acted in a certain way up to now, I once again present you with the morals analogy. Merely looking at the events at face value as you are doing is not enough, or you will end up finding that almost every theory is equally correct; you must investigate the possible causes behind them as part of a logically consistent system. Why have the people always wanted to have sex until now? I have already given you my explanation for that, and it fits in nicely with the other workings of the universe; why don't you now present yours and we will see where we can go from there.
As for the basis behind my assumptions, this dualism towards the whole concept that I mentioned early on in this thread, along with its relative rate of change is where all that comes from. If it continues as it is going right now, it can be easily shown that a logical contradiction will be reached at one point. If the universe is to remain logically consistent, which I admit I am assuming it is, then the contradiction can only be a limiting value rather than a finitely reachable value. As to why one assumption is better than the other, it is because one can fully explain the existence assumed by the other while the same does not work in the opposite direction. I say this again: explain to me why sex has caused humanity to build a society despite to the fact that animals have it as well. I can give you a consistent chain of reasoning as to why humans enjoy sex based on having the need to advance, but I have yet to see you show how the opposite implication would be true. This is exactly how logical elimination can be made to work in practice to predict events. Lastly, I do not believe; I only assume. (yes, there is a difference :D)
I'll try to look into it, but since society didn't really change since the fifties, I already know that it didn't make any sociological and psychological predictions. What exactly did the guy predict?
It didn't change much since the fifties, eh? Look more closely at the smaller things. Mostly various economic trends, the rise of a cultural paradigm in which personal freedom was king and several oter smaller things that do not mean much in themselves but come together to create a powerful whole.
See, there's your bias again. Society must fall. Breaking news for ya: it won't. You simply think that any system must evolve, without considering the simple factor that we never had any chance to analyse a system even remotely as complex as a planetwide human society. You're basing your ideas on a "local maximum" (to make an analogy), and failing to realize that we don't have the slightest idea of how the rest of the graph looks like.
See the above material for more information here. On a side note, you might have heard of the Foundation science fiction novels; some of the more practical implications of this social change are explored further there.
Now, seriously, this is getting pointless. We can keep debating for the literal rest of our lives and won't reach any conclusions, because none of us will ever live to know what will actually happen to human society. Maybe we should agree to get cryogenically frozen and wake up in a thousand years or so just to see who was right.
That would be pretty neat. Actually, we have gotten somewhat off-topic from the original argument, but I think it is still worth arguing about.
The first alternative is the closest, but still off. What I'm saying is that sex has always been an intrinsic part of culture and society, but the influence of religion had shifted it's role out of the foreground - not eliminated it. Now though, the influence of religion has dropped away, so the society and culture is reverting to what is natural.
But there is no "natural" state on which to revert (this was discussed at length in that "oh hell" thread a while ago), so that cannot really be used as evidence that the influence of sex will increase again; it is just as likely that any of the other "unnatural" events will occur if we try to determine conclusions from this information alone.
I think your mathematical turn of mind is what's primarily responsible for your apparent inability to see why we all think you're wrong - Human society isn't a function on a graph and it isn't predictable, human nature by contrast is predictable, as it's constant. I mean, do you have any idea how short the lengths of time you're talking about are? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you expect this method of yours to become mainstream in a few centuries? A few centuries of advanced technology compared to over two million years of the evolution of human nature? To put it in mathematical language that's 2 000 000:200...I know which one I'd back.
Wait, how is the individual human more predictable than a human mob? This is another of the few points that modern sociologists and political scientists agree on; the human mobs can be views in the same way as elementary particles are, where an individual unit is very difficult to predict but when the units group into masses, previously unseen patterns begin to manifest themselves and these can then be analyzed by statistical methods. As for the last part, that is because you are assuming the curve is linear and therefore the rate of change is constant; this is almost certainly not the case looking at the entire history of humanity, and an exponential growth system is more likely. (in terms of a function or functional, 200 could yield a higher result than 2000000 depending on where the displacement occurs)
My point in the previous post was that you and your views are currently in the extreme minority - please tell us why you think that your method would become mainstream anyway?
Same reason I gave with the morals earlier; they were at that time in the extreme minority as well, and look where they have gotten today. See what I responded to Styxx's post about the full analysis of events being necessary rather than just the interpretation of events.
Hmm...looking back over that post I've noticed I've been somewhat...arrogant. I'm not going to back down on any of my points but I will say that I'm not trying to be offensive, or stop you from having an opinion. I simply disagree with you.
No problem; I'm just trying to learn something out of all this, so I welcome the ideas of others whatever they might be.
Does anyone get the impression things have gone in the past 40 years from male-dominated to rather female-dominated in a trend that appears to be accelerating at an alarming rate?
Well I wouldn't really say that things are "dominated" by females, but I have noticed the trend that you are speaking of. I think that this is another effect of the gradual fading of religion, seeing as just about every major religion and culture out there dictates that the male is the superior of the female, so the differences are beginning to show now that the religion is dissipating and are thus being brought to attention. Since males and females, cultural influences aside, are really exactly the same as far as average thought processes go, I think that it will stabilize at something around 50-50 or whatever the current male/female ratio of the world is.
The only reason we do that is to try to get on CP's nerves
That is fine with me if I learn something out of all this; the main purpose of these little debates on my end is to sharpen my own views. ;)
18 so far. :D
-
Just had a funny idea; let me see if I can change my title around... :D (anyone know if this works?)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Just had a funny idea; let me see if I can change my title around... :D (anyone know if this works?)
does it involve changing 'Canis' to 'Penis'?
-
I was thinking about something like "Philosophy Crank," since that would describe me better. :D (the current one is related to my campaign project hosted here)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
18 so far. :D
You're only winning because you say so, I've been reading this, and you're really not :wtf:
-
The other guy drops the subject; that is a win as far as I am concerned. :p :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The other guy drops the subject; that is a win as far as I am concerned. :p :D
He dropped it because he realized you're too goddamn stubborn to see his point...
-
Originally posted by Thorn
He dropped it because he realized you're too goddamn stubborn to see his point...
Not everyone (hell does anyone?) views things as you do. You assume you are correct based solely on your point of view.
By the way I'm gonna sit and laugh when he turns 18
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Not everyone (hell does anyone?) views things as you do. You assume you are correct based solely on your point of view.
By the way I'm gonna sit and laugh when he turns 18
Was that directed at me? That came out wrong, I just cant think of any other way to say it...
-
Originally posted by Thorn
Was that directed at me? That came out wrong, I just cant think of any other way to say it...
Whoopsie. meant to quote CP o.O how did you get a post in there?
-
He dropped it because he realized you're too goddamn stubborn to see his point...
What point? :D Everyone says they have a point and I do not but they never actually say why; seems a bit suggestive to me. :p (actually, Styxx said that he is arguing just for the heck of it)
Not everyone (hell does anyone?) views things as you do. You assume you are correct based solely on your point of view.
Of course; that is what anyone does, and seeing as we are unfortunately bound by this limitation as different thinkers, the best thing we can do at the moment is to try to use a logic construction to put it into a semi-objective phase. (the rules of logic are assumed in an attempt to forego this limitation)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Of course; that is what anyone does, and seeing as we are unfortunately bound by this limitation as different thinkers, the best thing we can do at the moment is to try to use a logic construction to put it into a semi-objective phase. (the rules of logic are assumed in an attempt to forego this limitation)
But it doesn't mean you're correct, or that you "win" these arguments. It's like arguing what happens when you die, there's only one way to find out, and you can't prove one or the other, so what's the point?
-
But it doesn't mean you're correct, or that you "win" these arguments. It's like arguing what happens when you die, there's only one way to find out, and you can't prove one or the other, so what's the point?
Yes it does, as far as the argument is concerned. :D I guess an existentialist would say that everything is correct, which would make sense if no assumptions are being made, but that would lead to some pretty strange contradictions. Nothing can be proven when it comes down to that, but probabilities can be investigated based on perception, which is what the "logical positivism" is about.
-
Forget it, just let the math nerd think he's won, arguing with him just takes too much energy. One way or another, I'm not giving up sex for math.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Forget it, just let the math nerd think he's won, arguing with him just takes too much energy. One way or another, I'm not giving up sex for math.
Dice
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes it does, as far as the argument is concerned. :D I guess an existentialist would say that everything is correct, which would make sense if no assumptions are being made, but that would lead to some pretty strange contradictions. Nothing can be proven when it comes down to that, but probabilities can be investigated based on perception, which is what the "logical positivism" is about.
All you've done is prove a possible path, there's no way you can factor in all the possiblities and give me a probability on it. You've proved it is possible not it's the most likely :)
-
All you've done is prove a possible path, there's no way you can factor in all the possiblities and give me a probability on it. You've proved it is possible not it's the most likely :)
Are you another nihilist around here? :D Actually, recall that the purpose of this argument was to compare two distinct paths, and so all that needed to be shown was that one was more likely than the other. "Most likely" is indeed quite difficult to prove in theory due to the infinite number of possibilities, but it actually works out quite nicely in practice because the various possible paths can be factored into a small number of distinct groups and dealt with as large parts; if a contradiction is shown, then the whole group can be eliminated. Continue narrowing down this process until you only have one theory left, and then go argue with someone about it. :D
Forget it, just let the math nerd think he's won, arguing with him just takes too much energy. One way or another, I'm not giving up sex for math.
You will not, but your successors will. ;7 :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You will not, but your successors will. ;7 :D
You do realise, that if you come into some sort of power, and that if you try to follow through with these plans of yours, you will be publicly lynched?
-
Why would I need to do anything? :D Like I said, this will happen if things continue the way they are going; if some unpredictable thing happens (like, say, a dictator taking over the entire world), the theory would need to be modified accordingly. Look at the ideas and not the person. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But there is no "natural" state on which to revert (this was discussed at length in that "oh hell" thread a while ago), so that cannot really be used as evidence that the influence of sex will increase again; it is just as likely that any of the other "unnatural" events will occur if we try to determine conclusions from this information alone.
I think that there is a natural social state, one in which certain undesirable parts of the human nature are suppressed by law and common agreement, while other parts are given freedom and contribute to society - ie. like every other society not oppressed from above (by religion, or prudish monarchs or whatever).
Wait, how is the individual human more predictable than a human mob? This is another of the few points that modern sociologists and political scientists agree on; the human mobs can be views in the same way as elementary particles are, where an individual unit is very difficult to predict but when the units group into masses, previously unseen patterns begin to manifest themselves and these can then be analyzed by statistical methods.
As for the last part, that is because you are assuming the curve is linear and therefore the rate of change is constant; this is almost certainly not the case looking at the entire history of humanity, and an exponential growth system is more likely. (in terms of a function or functional, 200 could yield a higher result than 2000000 depending on where the displacement occurs)[/b]
Psychological evolution isn't something that can be sped up, nno matter how advanced your society becomes. The change you're talking about (the shift away from sex) is probably among the biggest changes in the way humans act that could possibly be imagined, and there is no way that you could speed that up, particularly not for all six billion people on this planet. I mean, your average 6 year old boy will run away from "girl germs' but give them another six or seven years, and they start running in the opposite direction, no matter how much they were afraid of/disliked the opposite sex. Doesn't that suggest it's preprogrammed to you? Doesn't it strike you as a major obstacle for your theory?
Same reason I gave with the morals earlier; they were at that time in the extreme minority as well, and look where they have gotten today. See what I responded to Styxx's post about the full analysis of events being necessary rather than just the interpretation of events.
There's a world of difference between having morals and having sex my friend. :D
Originally posted by Lt Narol
One way or another, I'm not giving up sex for math.
Here Here! :D
-
I think that there is a natural social state, one in which certain undesirable parts of the human nature are suppressed by law and common agreement, while other parts are given freedom and contribute to society - ie. like every other society not oppressed from above (by religion, or prudish monarchs or whatever).
See if you can dig up that other thread; I gave a bunch of reasons there why everything that can possibly happen in the universe is equally natural (even, say, something like all of humanity nuking the planet and themselves) and no distinction can be made to have one event any more "natural" than the another as long as it exists in this reality. Hey, even Kellan agreed with me. :D
Psychological evolution isn't something that can be sped up, nno matter how advanced your society becomes. The change you're talking about (the shift away from sex) is probably among the biggest changes in the way humans act that could possibly be imagined, and there is no way that you could speed that up, particularly not for all six billion people on this planet. I mean, your average 6 year old boy will run away from "girl germs' but give them another six or seven years, and they start running in the opposite direction, no matter how much they were afraid of/disliked the opposite sex. Doesn't that suggest it's preprogrammed to you? Doesn't it strike you as a major obstacle for your theory?
Hold on, when did I say that psychological evolution would be "sped up?" I was talking about the technological progress there. That does influence the speed of psychological change quite a bit as well, but we do not really need to consider that for this argument since it would only become a significant factor much later. There is no such thing as this "preprogramming" (or rather, hardcoded preprogramming) - by which we then fall into the trap of religion - since like I said earlier, the entire universe is a contantly fluid and evolving unit, and if any constant quantities even exist, they have to do with physical constants and such things; unless you can trace the desire for sex to one of those things, it is much too specific to account for an assumption. And I am not sure what you mean by it being one of the "biggest changes" around; from a truly universal perspective, this is really a very insignificant change compared to what is to come after that.
The other thing I should mention is that, thinking intuitively only and letting the subconscious brain do all the work, I actually quite agree with all of you: I instinctively "feel" that sex is necessary and also one of the best things around, just as any of you do, but I constantly question such thoughts. Thing is, I have tried to examine this more closely and disregarded my emotions completely while doing so, and this is the conclusion I have reached by means of full rationality.
There's a world of difference between having morals and having sex my friend. :D
Actually, I was stating the methods in which they were brought into human affairs and using that as an analogy, not the morals themselves.
-
hey cp, i don't get it.
why do you rely on logic to prove your ideas? if it can be called proof.
The thing is, life isn't logical. you think its logical because you're a creature of this universe, but it isn't. hasn't any weird coincidences, strange occurances, anything like that ever happened to you?
if life was logical, we wouldn't be humans. we'd be robots, pre-programmed to do... whatever.
in fact, if life was logical, it wouldn't exist. what would be the point? logic is not... a part of life, its an invention of humans who kid themselves that it is important.
go on, prove me wrong. :D
-
As I see it, all these arguments are putridified bull****. How in the hell are we supposed to predict what the future shape of human society is going to be? As if you can do anything to alter its ultimate result anyways. :rolleyes:
The only reason I'm saying anything is that I'm intensely curious as to what that question Shrike alluded to at the beginning of the thread is, as I'm sure we all are. To blazes with offense! Ask away!
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I want to see if people can actually debate this topic in a vaguelly adult matter.
BOOBIES BOOBIE BOOBIES!!!!
sorry
btw, turn on the discovery channel. there's a show about sex inspiring inventions on.
-
hey cp, i don't get it.
why do you rely on logic to prove your ideas? if it can be called proof.
The thing is, life isn't logical. you think its logical because you're a creature of this universe, but it isn't. hasn't any weird coincidences, strange occurances, anything like that ever happened to you?
if life was logical, we wouldn't be humans. we'd be robots, pre-programmed to do... whatever.
in fact, if life was logical, it wouldn't exist. what would be the point? logic is not... a part of life, its an invention of humans who kid themselves that it is important.
go on, prove me wrong. :D
Another nihilist...anyway, I rely on logic because there is no other comparable system out there; I know it is not too great, but it is the best thing we've got. And life is logical, or rather, it is logical alongside a multitude of other systems, but it can be described in terms of logic, which is essentially the first assumption of science. I have never had any "coincidences or strange occurrences" that could not be explained by logic in some way, so I am going to keep the consistency axioms as long as they are working well in practice. There is no fundamental difference between the human and the robot; they are both equally material parts of the universe. Life does not need to have a point; in fact, trying to give a purpose in the sense you are thinking of results in a contradiction. Although logic is an invention of humans, why is it that humans can predict real world events using it? (kinematic motion, for example) Statement disproved. :D (for more details, see the rest of this thread along with the "oh hell," "America, happy fourth...," and "ot: religion" threads)
As I see it, all these arguments are putridified bull****. How in the hell are we supposed to predict what the future shape of human society is going to be? As if you can do anything to alter its ultimate result anyways.
Is everyone a nihilist around here or something? :p We assume it is possible to do that because it has worked wonderfully for tons of other predictions and to a smaller extent, because we have nothing to lose by searching for a truth. (actually, there is a much more complicated aspect to the second part but I won't get into the details) Lastly, we are not interested in altering the final result. (just yet, anyway)
-
that's not the point.
the point is that all this argument about life is pointless. life happens- go live it. its a sad life you live if you sit around theoreticizing or whatever the word is.
-
I dunno, but I find your insatiable desire to disprove everyone who disagrees with your patterns of thought and to convert the unconvinced to said thought patterns quite repugnant.
You seek to...oh, how should I say it?...dehumanize humanity. Vat-grown replicants, pah! To remove the basic humanistic urges is to destroy that which makes us human, what defines who we are.
And your attempts to model sociological evolution to a mathematical algorithm are some of the greatest exercises in futility I've seen to date. I commend you, for being more machine than a computer could ever be.
[quantum waveform voice]He will make an excellent drone.[/quantum waveform voice]
And even if you aren't trying to convert everyone into believing what you say, you still cling like a child to the idea that you are right, and every one of us will be shown up in the end. WHY?
-
not tired yet of talking about CP's total lack of life? of social life may I add to stay "politicaly correct"?
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]I just hate to see nice guys wonder if it would be better to stop being nice. Before I figured it out I thought the same. One time I dated someone I worked with and pretended I didn't care. It backfired in a big way. He dumped me for the nastiest troll in the place. It was a painful lesson. I just didn't want anyone else here to make the same mistake.[/color] :)
pfwah!
easy to say, dear resident blonde ( :p ). Anyway, when you're nice, you're nice, you can't turn bad just to "get more chicks" ( sorry for the terminology ). If you can, well, you weren't nice, you were an actor. So no real problem to fix there.
But anyway, to chicks, I guess "bad boys" are just more interesting, dunno. Some girls I know ( but don't like actually ) say I'm looking good ( they still have to prove that anyway :p ), but yet they go with the stupid dumbass who break the benches in public squares and stuff like that, the kind of guy you can find out the IQ just by looking at his face ( IQ that they can count on their fingers :p ) . Go wonder...
-
Originally posted by icespeed
that's not the point.
the point is that all this argument about life is pointless. life happens- go live it. its a sad life you live if you sit around theoreticizing or whatever the word is.
Some of the greatest philosophers of the western civilisation "sat around" discussing life. How else do you develop new understand if not through discussing things with others?
Right, enough said on that: Now, no sex? Are you mad? (Or possibly taken a vow of celibacy? :p)
-
Originally posted by vyper
Some of the greatest philosophers of the western civilisation "sat around" discussing life.
Yeah, they did. For a few hours, not 7/7 24/24 ... you know, drinking wine and stuff like that, enjoying what they had already and trying to add stuff, not trying to replace everything with ****ing robots.
-
Is it a condition of this thread that people misinterpret what you write or is it just a growing infection of stupidity?
I was saying there's nothing wrong with discussing life. I wasn't advocating a 24/7 approach to it.
I was not agreeing or disagreeing with anything anyone said (i.e. robots :wtf: ) ... I just said you can't ban sex :D
-
Originally posted by JC Denton
The only reason I'm saying anything is that I'm intensely curious as to what that question Shrike alluded to at the beginning of the thread is, as I'm sure we all are. To blazes with offense! Ask away!
It's a goodie all right. :D
Maybe tomorrow.
-
that's not the point.
the point is that all this argument about life is pointless. life happens- go live it. its a sad life you live if you sit around theoreticizing or whatever the word is.
I say it is a sad life when one does not "sit around theorizing." :D Besides, it can be shown that all other human pursuits in the whole are just means to knowledge in the end, and to do otherwise results in contradictions.
I dunno, but I find your insatiable desire to disprove everyone who disagrees with your patterns of thought and to convert the unconvinced to said thought patterns quite repugnant.
Actually, the objective of any argument is to narrow down the various theories in an attempt to end up with just one left. I couldn't care less what everyone else here thinks on the subject; I am trying to sharpen my own views, and what better way to do that than to argue? :D
You seek to...oh, how should I say it?...dehumanize humanity. Vat-grown replicants, pah! To remove the basic humanistic urges is to destroy that which makes us human, what defines who we are.
You are sounding exactly like the Catholic church when people like Copernicus and Galileo made their theories public. First of all, I do not "seek" to do anything but find the truth and couldn't care less about humanity otherwise. Secondly, stop viewing the human society as something in itself; it is just another part of the universe, and as far as we know, irremovably tied to everything else in reality. Therefore, there is no clear distinction that defines who we are, since anything we possibly do will be equally "human." (like I said, nuking everyone on the planet is human) Also, a prehistoric man would have said that attempting to discover knowledge (science) would also "destroy that which makes us human." :p
And your attempts to model sociological evolution to a mathematical algorithm are some of the greatest exercises in futility I've seen to date. I commend you, for being more machine than a computer could ever be.
There are a number of the experts in this field today who would scoff at that statement. :D
And even if you aren't trying to convert everyone into believing what you say, you still cling like a child to the idea that you are right, and every one of us will be shown up in the end. WHY?
I will cling to whatever idea is logically correct; convince me that another idea is better, and I will switch to that immediately. Unless you can argue your points against other points, they are for all purposes, incorrect. As I said before, look at the idea and not the person.
Some of the greatest philosophers of the western civilisation "sat around" discussing life. How else do you develop new understand if not through discussing things with others?
Yes, that is still the best way of doing these things. :nod:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Hey, even Kellan agreed with me. :D
I did?? :confused: Zoinks! I've got to see this! (You see, I'm still catching up and therefore not entirely aware of what is going on).
However, I could be about to agree with you again: In all likelihood, you could bring about changes in large populations that now seem impossible. After all, abortion, suicide and euthanasia have all been view by various societies as unfathomable and abhorrent at one time or another, yet today they are subjects in the realm of public discourse or frequently practised. Although my rationale isn't mathematical, I can see how a campaign of coercion, propaganda and free exchanges of information plus erosion of retroactive forces such as religion could besuccessful in getting people to adopt or stop certain behaviours. It gets easier once people start doing it too, because of group conformity pressures and demystification.
However, getting people to adopt a behaviour is sometimes easier than getting them to give it up, as you may have noticed. Racism was relatively easy to instill, but getting rid of it is a tremendous challenge. :p
-
Originally posted by vyper
Is it a condition of this thread that people misinterpret what you write or is it just a growing infection of stupidity?
I was saying there's nothing wrong with discussing life. I wasn't advocating a 24/7 approach to it.
I was not agreeing or disagreeing with anything anyone said (i.e. robots :wtf: ) ... I just said you can't ban sex :D
calm down: I wasn't going against what you said, I just draw a line with what the others posted before, and the difference between the philosophers you mentionned and CP.
btw, CP:
Yes, that is still the best way of doing these things.
how can you say that, you who flee any single physical contact with other people? you who can't bear sunlight, who would surely suffocate if you had to leave your home ( agoraphobia?)? You sure have some nerves.
and I would never look at humanity as a little part of the universe, even if I know it's true, thanx. Why? coz I don't give a damn about the rest of the universe, I've never seen it, I don't even know about it, and I most likely never will, even if I'm blessed with 120 000 resurections. What I know? Humanity. I won't put it as the center of the universe, but as the only unit I know to compare other things with. So humanity is somethig in itself, and I don't care if you don't have enough self-confidence to think that you're nothing more than an helpless particle of dust in da great void of spaaaaaaaAAAAAAaaaace :p
Btw, your exemples are not very well chosen, Copernic, etc, they didn't change anything to humanity, they just moved humanity's place next to all the other things that exists. they don't replace anything, what changed is called evolution. and I'm wasting my time, damn, I have better to do.
And I prefer to talk about sex ( since talking about it is the only thing I seem to be able to do these days... ) :p
-
calm down: I wasn't going against what you said, I just draw a line with what the others posted before, and the difference between the philosophers you mentionned and CP.
Actually I am quite moderate compared to some of them. :D
how can you say that, you who flee any single physical contact with other people? you who can't bear sunlight, who would surely suffocate if you had to leave your home ( agoraphobia?)? You sure have some nerves.
I personally do not like being in contact with people, but that is of little importance; I am ready to do even that if I will get something out of it. (or else I would not even be posting here :p) For the third time, look at the idea and not the person behind it. People usually look at the person when they cannot think of anything else to say against the idea, so that could be a partial victory. :D
-
the idea comes from the person behind it. you spawned the idea, it's a reflection of yourself, or else it's call schyzophrenia ( dunno the spelling in english )
-
hehehe...check out some "analytic philosophy" books and you will see what a silly statement that was. :D For the purposes of the argument, it makes no difference at all who I am.
I did?? Zoinks! I've got to see this! (You see, I'm still catching up and therefore not entirely aware of what is going on).
Yeah, remember in that old "oh hell" thread? :D
However, I could be about to agree with you again: In all likelihood, you could bring about changes in large populations that now seem impossible. After all, abortion, suicide and euthanasia have all been view by various societies as unfathomable and abhorrent at one time or another, yet today they are subjects in the realm of public discourse or frequently practised. Although my rationale isn't mathematical, I can see how a campaign of coercion, propaganda and free exchanges of information plus erosion of retroactive forces such as religion could besuccessful in getting people to adopt or stop certain behaviours. It gets easier once people start doing it too, because of group conformity pressures and demystification.
Exactly; I agree with just about everything there.
However, getting people to adopt a behaviour is sometimes easier than getting them to give it up, as you may have noticed. Racism was relatively easy to instill, but getting rid of it is a tremendous challenge.
Yeah, it need to be emotionally appealing, but the nice thing in this case is that those who refuse to accept the new system will end up falling up behind and will be unable to compete. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
hehehe...check out some "analytic philosophy" books and you will see what a silly statement that was. :D For the purposes of the argument, it makes no difference at all who I am.
her, I have better things to do ( well, I'm supposed to work right now, I'm at college :lol: ), be thankful I'm not basing all my beliefs ( in a non religious way ) on art as you do on maths ;)
Do you like chocolate?
-
her, I have better things to do ( well, I'm supposed to work right now, I'm at college :lol: ), be thankful I'm not basing all my beliefs ( in a non religious way ) on art as you do on maths ;)
Do you like chocolate?
I'm on my summer break, so I have some time. :D Regarding chocolate, it's okay I guess.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I'm on my summer break, so I have some time. :D
well, there's at least one thing I'd like to have in common with you :(
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yeah, it need to be emotionally appealing, but the nice thing in this case is that those who refuse to accept the new system will end up falling up behind and will be unable to compete. ;)
The old "once you've opened up Pandora's box..." argument. Imagine if somebody refused to use cars, like the most orthodox Mormons do - and as a result, you don't see them as a dominant force in, well, anything. The same priniciple can be applied to other technological creations and I have no doubt that unless (and probably in spite of) strenuous regulation of the cloning and biotech sectors is employed, it will prove no different. CP would find his views expressed to an extent in the film Gattaca; an ordinary person in a world where people have moved beyond the ordinary would have to work very hard just to keep pace with their 'normality'.
Regarding what you said about what was natural, I assume that your line of argument is that since the dawn of our species humans seem to have had an innate ability and drive to innovate, create tools and use them. Therefore, the construction of spaceships, cloning technology or ball-point pens is just an extension of that first innate ability, and is therefore a product of 'nature'. Am I correct (or at least on the right lines?) :)
It occurs to me, CP, that we're not so different. I can see the merits of what you're saying with regard to manipulation of people's minds through propaganda, improving people's bodies, the fact that overarching society will crush inviduality, and even the criticisms of nihilism. However, the difference is that I'm still unwilling to accept them as the only option, or the best option. Perhaps you view my priorities and motivations as being in the wrong place, but at least I can understand your views to an extent - even if I disagree with them strongly on moral and ideological grounds.
I'm not saying that to start an argument - just observing it. :p
-
I wouldn't say no to a neural implant, a "female thoughts" translator :p
-
Hmmm, you guys arguing with CP need to learn something, it's a little adage that I once read that's saved me a lot of time and angst it is simply:
Never argue with a person who knows they are right.
-
Never argue with a person who knows they are right.
Although the concepts of right and wrong as far as the validity of an untestable statement are based on the results of arguments. I cannot of course know whether or not I am right, but the purpose of the argument is to settle that, so keep on arguing! :D
Regarding what you said about what was natural, I assume that your line of argument is that since the dawn of our species humans seem to have had an innate ability and drive to innovate, create tools and use them. Therefore, the construction of spaceships, cloning technology or ball-point pens is just an extension of that first innate ability, and is therefore a product of 'nature'. Am I correct (or at least on the right lines?)
Exactly; this is quite similar to what I was thinking of. All universal processes (including human affairs) are natural because they are all unseparable parts of the universe, which is the definition of "natural." ;) (or in other words, nothing can be unnatural)
It occurs to me, CP, that we're not so different. I can see the merits of what you're saying with regard to manipulation of people's minds through propaganda, improving people's bodies, the fact that overarching society will crush inviduality, and even the criticisms of nihilism. However, the difference is that I'm still unwilling to accept them as the only option, or the best option. Perhaps you view my priorities and motivations as being in the wrong place, but at least I can understand your views to an extent - even if I disagree with them strongly on moral and ideological grounds.
Hey, good enough; that is still a much better statement than most people provide. ;)
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
Hmmm, you guys arguing with CP need to learn something, it's a little adage that I once read that's saved me a lot of time and angst it is simply:
You mean "thinks they know that theyre right"
-
Originally posted by Thorn
You mean "thinks they know that theyre right"
Nah. A person who knows that they are right will never give creedence to your ideas since if the ideas are different they have to be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
Nah. A person who knows that they are right will never give creedence to your ideas since if the ideas are different they have to be wrong.
:lol:
-
Too true. No amount of arguing will ever change CP's opinion. I guess we'll have to accept it. We can disagree with it of course, though a mutual respect will have to be given, unless we all want to waste the rest of our lives bickering. ^^
-
Meh, I just noticed that this has grown a few pages since my last post... I don't have the time to waste reading back trhough all of it, must work.
:sigh:
-
...Why does it take at least 11 posts saying the exact same thing to consider something said here? Really, no wonder everyone gets bored and screws up these threads- if you have nothing to say but a rephrase of what someone said perfectly well the first time, you can probably fill in the time you spend here getting a job as a stenographer.
Nooow... damn, I can't think of anything that won't get crapped here in short order. Never mind.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
Hmmm, you guys arguing with CP need to learn something, it's a little adage that I once read that's saved me a lot of time and [/i]angst[/i]...
It saved you time and fear? :confused: :D
Sorry, I just like pointing out to people from time to time that the word angst is German for fear, and is not a proper English word - or it's a malapropism. Anyway, I don't like it. Reminds me too much of "feel my angst!!!" bands... ;)
-
Angst: A feeling of anxiety or apprehension often accompanied by depression.
-
:wtf:
Oh! I see... you know, Kellan, I couldn't see the blue letters in your sig at first, and it looked like some admin couldn't spell and had a wierd sense of humor...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, while sex was indeed necessary up to now, the cloning and other artificial systems will invalidate it very soon. And it would actually be interesting as hell because then everyone would focus on other things, such as the pursuit of knowledge. ;7
you need a sex life, seriously
you're like the dude that runs San Angeles in Demolition Man, you're going to be a 50 year old virgin
-
Originally posted by Kazan
you're like the dude that runs San Angeles in Demolition Man, you're going to be a 50 year old virgin
THAT'S a good one!
-
they were all virgins.
-
Not all of them, some of the older people weren't, or the guys in the sewers ( I realize how stupid that sounds)
-
Relationships and dating are a great thing, love is the greatest thing on the planet. Those of you that haven't felt true love are missing out.
Kazan runs out of words to describe and remains speechless in recollective thought
-
*gasp!*
I agree
.....
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Kazan runs out of words to describe and remains speechless in recollective thought
That's a first! ;)
-
i knew you'd say that :P
-
I return to discreetly remind Shrike about his question. ;)
And I give up trying to argue with CP, simply because my entire life people (not too dissimilar to CP) have turned everything I've ever said around, misrepresented it, and overall publicly shamed me (as you just saw). Therefore I admit my arguments are the work of a foolish jackass.
CP believes that sex will be replaced by cloning. I personally think that is the most nonsensical statement considering he has never experienced it, and probably has nightmares about falling in love with something other than a calculator. :D
I believe that there's going to be a medium somewhere that will maintain itself once genetic engineering reaches a state of maturity (not too dissimilar to the reengineering bits from Gattaca), but sex in and of itself will never die out simply because of the physical pleasure people experience whilst "getting it on" for lack of a better term. ;7
So in the end, I'd suppose you'd mix Gattaca with Brave New World or (if things keep going as they are) Strange Days to get the 200-years-from-now society.
Militarily, clones with enough genetic variation to not be exact duplicates could be created with enhanced muscular strength, stamina, maybe limited telepathy thus making communications impossible to intercept except with said supersoldiers, and possibly be surgically fitted with a neuromechanical interface for vehicle control.
99% of that one way or another agrees with everything CP has said, but I really don't care anymore.
-
Originally posted by JC Denton
I personally think that is the most nonsensical statement considering he has never experienced it, and probably has nightmares about falling in love with something other than a calculator. :D
You sir, get my vote for funniest statement of the page
-
CP has lowered my opinion of his successfully in this thread
-
Relationships and dating are a great thing, love is the greatest thing on the planet. Those of you that haven't felt true love are missing out.
Kazan...we can agree on something! Although I doubt that the likes of you or I or most of us here have felt 'true love' yet because were too young. At least in my book. True love is that lofty but achievable goal for when your a bit older (not too much older mind you! I want to find true love in the next 10 years :D).
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Kazan...we can agree on something! Although I doubt that the likes of you or I or most of us here have felt 'true love' yet because were too young. At least in my book. True love is that lofty but achievable goal for when your a bit older (not too much older mind you! I want to find true love in the next 10 years :D).
Eh? But what is true love? It's not wise to tell people they've never truly loved because they're too young. You can't tell me that at a certain age love finds you, cause it just ain't true ;)
-
I'd agree the age matter is irrelevant, because i know, and it's beyond words of explaination
how about when you'd die for that person, give that person up if it meant their happiness despite the infinite sadness you would have, *rambles on*
-
Originally posted by JC Denton
I return to discreetly remind Shrike about his question. ;)
Ok ok.... This is what I was going to ask. I'm not really expecting a positive reply, but one never knows. ;) Just to save some people's sensitivities I'll black it out.
CP, have you ever masturbated, to orgasm or not? I'm not even going to bother asking if you've done anything more....
Really a simple question, but if he hasn't even done that much (part of pretty much everyone's 'sexual exploration') I think he isn't exactly in a position to talk about how 'math is better than sex' and so forth.... how often do you get an endorphin rush from finishing a math problem?
-
Originally posted by Shrike
how often do you get an endorphin rush from finishing a math problem?
I wouldnt put it past him.....
-
For all of you who are arguing about "sex is better than math" or etc., stop for just a second. What makes you right or wrong? None or any or all of you could be right. All of you have different opinions based on what you have experienced. Does your belief about sex/dating/love work for you? Now, if you could look at the memory of every person in the world and generate from that, then you could be right. But you can't. What you have gone through proves to you that your opinion is right.
the light and dark side of diversity......
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
For all of you who are arguing about "sex is better than math" or etc., stop for just a second. What makes you right or wrong? None or any or all of you could be right. All of you have different opinions based on what you have experienced. Does your belief about sex/dating/love work for you? Now, if you could look at the memory of every person in the world and generate from that, then you could be right. But you can't. What you have gone through proves to you that your opinion is right.
the light and dark side of diversity......
I don't think the point is (or was) telling him or anyone that sex is better than math, I was merely pointing out that he cannot say with any certainty that sex will become obselete.
-
I wasn't just talking about you, I was trying to get rid of everybody talking about how stubborn everybody was about their opinions. I didn't feel like making that make me happy.
-
I know, I think we kinda drifted from the original point.
People will keep having sex whether its for procreation or not, no matter what CP thinks of it.
-
Ditto, since I can't delete this message.
-
Why? You just said what I did :p
-
Sorry, didn't see what you said before I said the same thing that you said or else I wouldn't have said what you said before I said what I said:ha:
-
Hmm...
...Mmm...
...I wonder...
... Why is it I can never get any of the little kids on my block to play machine-gun tag with me? I've got real machine guns and everything...
-
Originally posted by venom2506
I wouldn't say no to a neural implant, a "female thoughts" translator :p
[color=sky blue]Female thoughts are the only "true" anarchy. No rules, no logical progressions. No neural chip or imprinting could possibly make sense of the purely random associations generated by perpetual hormonal mischief.[/color] :p :D
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]Female thoughts are the only "true" anarchy.
Not quite.
*laughs maniacally*
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]Female thoughts are the only "true" anarchy. No rules, no logical progressions. No neural chip or imprinting could possibly make sense of the purely random associations generated by perpetual hormonal mischief.[/color] :p :D
meh, than I need to get a g/f who wouldn't mind telling me what she thinks then ( this ain't goin' to happen I tell ya... :p )
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]Female thoughts are the only "true" anarchy. No rules, no logical progressions. No neural chip or imprinting could possibly make sense of the purely random associations generated by perpetual hormonal mischief.[/color] :p :D
I was afraid female hormones would come into this somewhere...
*runs screaming out of thread*
*comes back*
Right, one thing: If female thoughts are true anarchy, are male thoughts true logic? Hmm...
(Personally I think the answer is no, because female anarchy causes emotional anarchy for men, but others may disagree)
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]Female thoughts are the only "true" anarchy. No rules, no logical progressions. No neural chip or imprinting could possibly make sense of the purely random associations generated by perpetual hormonal mischief.[/color] :p :D
What I love about my g/f is the way that she can get offended by the stupidest things. I told her I pulled the legs off a spider when I was someting like 5 years old and goddamn it was one of the biggest arguments we've had for a long time, she wanted me to apologise for doing it and I refused.
Women is weird.
-
Originally posted by vyper
are male thoughts true logic? Hmm...
[color=sky blue]ROFLMAO!!![/color]
(http://216.40.201.38/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif)(http://216.40.201.38/otn/realhappy/xxrotflmao.gif)
[color=sky blue]um....I mean, not exactly...*snicker*[/color] :D :p ;)
-
Heheh. I dunno. While working at the airport, making airplane food, I was literarely the only GUY working in the kitchen along with ALOT of women. Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it was actually very enlightning and helped me form my own theory of the female mind, that I ran across many of them, who agreed to it often enough then stop talking to me cause I seemed to know a great secret or something. :D Anyway, the theory is really complex and I've thankfully forgotten most of it by now, cause its really rather depressing. Not for women, but for me. :D
The basic premise is that women infact have 3 minds in one brain, each arguing to be dominant all the time. Now, most of the time 2 of the 3 brains share co dominance however this lasts for like a day or two and then it basically switches over. But not rotationally. Totally randomly. If I remember correctly, the three minds were EMOTION, BODY and LOGIC. Now, this in itself proves that female brains are perhaps more evolved than male brains, however this may cause more confusion. While men usually have only one mind, YES WE DO, we think things more clearly. This might sound like a good thing, but truth in fact we don't delve into a topic or subject as deeply as woman does. Men could easly just spill some milk and put some newspaper on it, without worrying what might happen later on. With a woman, she may allready be thinking what that milk might do by next friday, so she cleans it up before any harm can happen.
This is also proof of the fact that women can do several things at once. Like my g/f can watch tv, read her book, have a coherent conversation with me and even speak on the phone.
Like I said before, women think of so many things at once, and ponder about things so deeply that it may often confuse even themselves. But this is only proof that they have futher evolved brain that is unfortunately not YET organized enough to work in full efficiency. So what it does is compensate and allow 2/3 of the minds to have dominance at a time. This can be proof of the reasons why women might be really emotional one day and the next day be a walking computer. Or be more "intimate" on other while being a computer or emotional. Well, if this has confused you as it has me, then you're on the right track. I'm pritty sure a woman might see some sence in this, but like I said its a theory devised from working with women for 9 months and listening to their conversations and arguments. My brain literarely started to hurt after a while when I was trying to make sence of what they were talkng about, but I realised that perphaps male brains cannot process the amount of data a female conveys while communicating to another female. So we just get confused. Now, I can be wrong and what they're saying is as lost to me as it is to the person she's speaking to, but who knows. Thats it really. We will never really understand them, so all we can do is just agree with them when they want you too, and disagree when they're clearly looking for a fight. Well, now my brain is aching again, so I'll go make myself a couple of tequila shots in order to forget all of this again. :D
-
[color=sky blue]Id, Ego, and SuperEgo....hmmm, where have I heard that before? :D :D
and yes, we do read a lot into things. That has the advantage of giving us added insights into things, especially social situations. It also has the disadvantage of rendering us very easily offended at times, usually leaving our male counterparts quite confused.
As to which brain is overall more highly evolved, I would say neither. Neural networks in the female brain have an infinitely higher number of something referred to as 'sprouts' in the land of neurobabble. Although the function of these is largely unknown, it is theorized that they enable a form of 'telepathy' necessary to communicate with infants. Women consistently score higher on sections of aptitude tests associated with social skills (languages, reading and composition, etc.) Men, of course, score higher on areas that involve spatial and mechanical skills. We are all familiar with this phenomenon.
I would say that the two brains are more evolved to specialize in what used to be traditional male and female roles in our species. Now that child-rearing and non-social professions are being taken up by both sexes, the course of that aspect of human evolution may be altered.[/color]
-
I stand corrected! Oh well. Like I said, I've tried to forget the theory, gave me too much of a headache. So I chose to savor the mystery. :D
-
To Kazan - You have surprised me a hell of a lot in your last few posts, of all the people I know or know of on HLP, or the FS Community as a whole, you are the person I thought second least likely to begin lyrically describing the joys of true love, after CP. Actually, take that back - coz when it hits him, it's gonna hit him baaaad. So you would be the one I'd pick as least likely to get so worked up over true love. I guess my ideas about you weren't as accurate as I'd thought they were...
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
To Kazan - You have surprised me a hell of a lot in your last few posts, of all the people I know or know of on HLP, or the FS Community as a whole, you are the person I thought second least likely to begin lyrically describing the joys of true love, after CP. Actually, take that back - coz when it hits him, it's gonna hit him baaaad. So you would be the one I'd pick as least likely to get so worked up over true love. I guess my ideas about you weren't as accurate as I'd thought they were...
*mumbles something about a book and it's cover...*
-
thank you wolf, and nice shot maeg :P
I saour love, it is what makes life worth living. No religion, no sport, no amount of money, nothing else could make life worth living. I have had it, and lost it, and my greatest fear is that I will never find it again.
You cannot attempt rationality, because it is perfect irationality...
You cannot attempt logic, because it is perfect illogic...
The intense anxiety of the persuit transformed into the intense joy of success....
But do not attempt to fool yourself, love is transcendental, not everlasting. Only a Transcendental existance can give the illusion of love everlasting. Cherish this wonderful illusion.
*continues ramlbing, loosing coherency*
-
[color=sky blue]like the man says, intimacy is nothing to fear...you're not alive without it[/color] :nod:
-
Except that girls have cooties.
-
I was somewhat busy for the last two days and was not really able to visit this place, but it doesn't look like anyone has been able to come with any new arguments. (either restatements of previous things or unsupported assertions) Come on, think of something good! :p :D
You cannot attempt rationality, because it is perfect irationality...
You cannot attempt logic, because it is perfect illogic...
And of course, you cannot attempt love, because it is perfect hate. :D
The intense anxiety of the persuit transformed into the intense joy of success....
hehe, that is like solving a big math problem, but individuals live for the pursuit to gain happiness (like a limiting value) rather than for the happiness itself, and the society thrives on progress in knowledge.
-
Like I said, perhaps we should all just savor the mystery... :D
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]Id, Ego, and SuperEgo....hmmm, where have I heard that before? :D :D
and yes, we do read a lot into things. That has the advantage of giving us added insights into things, especially social situations. It also has the disadvantage of rendering us very easily offended at times, usually leaving our male counterparts quite confused.
As to which brain is overall more highly evolved, I would say neither. Neural networks in the female brain have an infinitely higher number of something referred to as 'sprouts' in the land of neurobabble. Although the function of these is largely unknown, it is theorized that they enable a form of 'telepathy' necessary to communicate with infants. Women consistently score higher on sections of aptitude tests associated with social skills (languages, reading and composition, etc.) Men, of course, score higher on areas that involve spatial and mechanical skills. We are all familiar with this phenomenon.
I would say that the two brains are more evolved to specialize in what used to be traditional male and female roles in our species. Now that child-rearing and non-social professions are being taken up by both sexes, the course of that aspect of human evolution may be altered.[/color]
Right lads, loosely translated that means if two girls are *****ing at each other across a table at dinner WE will have no bloody idea until they later complain that we didn't do anything to help... at which point we go ":wtf:". Equally, if the table were to fall apart, it is much more likely we would be able to fix it than the women there. (Or, spatially speaking, we'd know what table to sit at to be closest to the bar! :D).
Am I right? Or am I just stupid? (There is no mandatory answer to that part)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
thank you wolf, and nice shot maeg :P
Wasn't a shot, just pointing out that you shouldn't judge the book by it's cover. It wasn't about my misjudging you. :)
-
maeg i was saying nice shot ie nice shot @ wolf
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]Id, Ego, and SuperEgo....hmmm, where have I heard that before? :D :D
and yes, we do read a lot into things. That has the advantage of giving us added insights into things, especially social situations. It also has the disadvantage of rendering us very easily offended at times, usually leaving our male counterparts quite confused.
As to which brain is overall more highly evolved, I would say neither. Neural networks in the female brain have an infinitely higher number of something referred to as 'sprouts' in the land of neurobabble. Although the function of these is largely unknown, it is theorized that they enable a form of 'telepathy' necessary to communicate with infants. Women consistently score higher on sections of aptitude tests associated with social skills (languages, reading and composition, etc.) Men, of course, score higher on areas that involve spatial and mechanical skills. We are all familiar with this phenomenon.
I would say that the two brains are more evolved to specialize in what used to be traditional male and female roles in our species. Now that child-rearing and non-social professions are being taken up by both sexes, the course of that aspect of human evolution may be altered.[/color]
It occurs to me..... is that an XY / XX chromosome thingimabob, then? Cos some people have 3 (XXY / XYY).... tis curious.
-
I think that the male and female brains and thought processes are effectively the same thing at their cores; it's just that millennia of cultural and social influences have created the differences we see today.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I think that the male and female brains and thought processes are effectively the same thing at their cores; it's just that millennia of cultural and social influences have created the differences we see today.
At their core, yes. The rest, no. Bodies are different and therefor a different brain is needed.
-
It would make things simpler CP, but unfortunately I doubt you're right. Think about it, male and females have far different chemicals acting on thier brains and bodies - and since thoughts are the processing of our perception of our surroundings there must be a fundamental difference. :wtf: I think
-
Originally posted by vyper
It would make things simpler CP, but unfortunately I doubt you're right. Think about it, male and females have far different chemicals acting on thier brains and bodies - and since thoughts are the processing of our perception of our surroundings there must be a fundamental difference. :wtf: I think
He means the CORE of the brain. Like regulating your bloodstream, breathing, etc...
-
Different stimuli cause women to breath faster and to increase heartrate than in men, so technically the point stands. :p
-
Originally posted by vyper
Different stimuli cause women to breath faster and to increase heartrate than in men, so technically the point stands. :p
They both still breath and still have a heart rate. So both brains have the same basic use.
-
Think about it, male and females have far different chemicals acting on thier brains...
They do? :wtf: I thought that the members of a given species on average are basically all the same things except for some minor physical differences, usually in terms of proportions.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
maeg i was saying nice shot ie nice shot @ wolf
:doh:
-
I agree with CP:male and female brains are different because the brain adjusts to suit the environment
-
Where's Borealis when u need her? A female voice might help me win here...
-
Originally posted by vyper
Where's Borealis when u need her? A female voice might help me win here...
Don't worry. She comes when ya least expect it. :D
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
Don't worry. She comes when ya least expect it. :D
Now that could be a bit akward!
-
*tenses up, fearing post coming out of the blue*
:p
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
*tenses up, fearing post coming out of the blue*
:p
Coming in blue, surely?
-
But of course, she's a slow typer
And it seems also a tease :mad: :wink: ;7
-
She's got you guys wrapped around her finger..... :lol:
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
Heheh. I dunno. While working at the airport, making airplane food, I was literarely the only GUY working in the kitchen along with ALOT of women. Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it was actually very enlightning and helped me form my own theory of the female mind, that I ran across many of them, who agreed to it often enough then stop talking to me cause I seemed to know a great secret or something. :D Anyway, the theory is really complex and I've thankfully forgotten most of it by now, cause its really rather depressing. Not for women, but for me. :D
The basic premise is that women infact have 3 minds in one brain, each arguing to be dominant all the time. Now, most of the time 2 of the 3 brains share co dominance however this lasts for like a day or two and then it basically switches over. But not rotationally. Totally randomly. If I remember correctly, the three minds were EMOTION, BODY and LOGIC. Now, this in itself proves that female brains are perhaps more evolved than male brains, however this may cause more confusion. While men usually have only one mind, YES WE DO, we think things more clearly. This might sound like a good thing, but truth in fact we don't delve into a topic or subject as deeply as woman does. Men could easly just spill some milk and put some newspaper on it, without worrying what might happen later on. With a woman, she may allready be thinking what that milk might do by next friday, so she cleans it up before any harm can happen.
This is also proof of the fact that women can do several things at once. Like my g/f can watch tv, read her book, have a coherent conversation with me and even speak on the phone.
Like I said before, women think of so many things at once, and ponder about things so deeply that it may often confuse even themselves. But this is only proof that they have futher evolved brain that is unfortunately not YET organized enough to work in full efficiency. So what it does is compensate and allow 2/3 of the minds to have dominance at a time. This can be proof of the reasons why women might be really emotional one day and the next day be a walking computer. Or be more "intimate" on other while being a computer or emotional. Well, if this has confused you as it has me, then you're on the right track. I'm pritty sure a woman might see some sence in this, but like I said its a theory devised from working with women for 9 months and listening to their conversations and arguments. My brain literarely started to hurt after a while when I was trying to make sence of what they were talkng about, but I realised that perphaps male brains cannot process the amount of data a female conveys while communicating to another female. So we just get confused. Now, I can be wrong and what they're saying is as lost to me as it is to the person she's speaking to, but who knows. Thats it really. We will never really understand them, so all we can do is just agree with them when they want you too, and disagree when they're clearly looking for a fight. Well, now my brain is aching again, so I'll go make myself a couple of tequila shots in order to forget all of this again. :D
Get in touch with your female self, man....
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Get in touch with your female self, man....
Better yet, get in touch with a female
-
Yeah, touch HER femal- [is dragged off and beaten by the less perverted members of the forum]
-
Wait...
less perverted? Where are these members hiding?
-
Right in plain sight....
-
Tie them to a tree and shoot gerbils at them, that'll teach them
-
You're dragging this off topic idiot...
-
This has been dragged off topic so many times it's silly. Besides I thought the main point was made like last page or so.
-
Originally posted by Borealis
[color=sky blue]Id, Ego, and SuperEgo....hmmm, where have I heard that before? :D :D[/color]
Dunno about that last one, but I first encountered the "ID" in an old sci-fi movie with Leslie Neilsen (no, I'm not joking, and neither was he - no white hair, either!), Robby the Robot, Walter Pidgeon, etc. called Forbidden Planet. Would that perhaps be it? :D
-
Originally posted by sandwich
Dunno about that last one, but I first encountered the "ID" in an old sci-fi movie with Leslie Neilsen (no, I'm not joking, and neither was he - no white hair, either!), Robby the Robot, Walter Pidgeon, etc. called Forbidden Planet. Would that perhaps be it? :D
Look in a psychology book.....
-
Originally posted by vyper
Now that could be a bit akward!
[color=sky blue]you'll never know!![/color] :p
-
Originally posted by Ten of Twelve
Don't worry. She comes when ya least expect it.
[glow=white] ;7:lol:;7:lol:;7:lol:;7:lol:;7[/glow]
-
Originally posted by vyper
Think about it, male and females have far different chemicals acting on thier brains and bodies - and since thoughts are the processing of our perception of our surroundings there must be a fundamental difference. :wtf: I think
[color=sky blue]that's the right answer. The ongoing processes that make reproduction possible keep a normal woman's body in a constant state of flux. Drastic physical changes take place within days of each other. I'm sure you will all be relieved that I'm not going to get any more specific than that. The point is that only substances as chemically reactive as hormones could facilitate such changes. Any chemical that reactive will have some unavoidable and nasty side effects. Anabolic steroids are hormones. Think of all the havoc they are known to wreak on a human body. I have done pharmacology internships with neuroscientists who I've discussed with at length the effects of hormones on the brain . It is impossible for any woman to have only logical thoughts and behavior because the hormones that cause drastic and perpetual changes in their bodies also distort their perceptions. We just have to learn from experience which thoughts to question and which thoughts to validate. It ain't easy.[/color] :wink:
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
[glow=white] ;7:lol:;7:lol:;7:lol:;7:lol:;7[/glow]
[color=sky blue]number 315,178,980 on the "you'll never know!!" list[/color] :p
-
Yeah, but is that all that it is? I'm fairly certain from personal experimenting in this general field that most of the chemical effects one can get in the mind are magnified a good deal by the person themself, and pretty much voluntarily- chemoreceptors are only good for one burst at a time, meaning an intense, involuntary burst of... whatever, might last a couple seconds. No more, and that's not long enough to influence thought significantly. After that, the brain can go on to other, longer-lasting but less potent chemicals, but there's a kinda psychological gap there. As others have demonstrated far more dramatically than I have the guts to do, if you go under severe pain conditions, it hurts like hell for a second and you start freaking out and spasming, but after that if you have the right psychological control over yourself you can ignore even that. (I, personally, can't even ignore irritating itches, but I can demonstrate this ability in other areas). So it's not a subconscious, involuntary thing- it's something that's controlled semiconsciously by the person, and how they deal with it unconsiously is determined by how they were taught to in life. I've seen women who, at certain times of the month, can only be approached at a distance of several hundred yards, and then on tiptoe. I've also seen some who don't seem to change at all- and these are 18-year-old-girls, so it's not menopause or anything. It's how much they make it worse for themselves. It's much the same when one has a diseasae, or has just cut themselves accidentially, or got a nasty electric shock- it's nothing that lasts, unless you determine it should. And I'm babbling. Ah well, fribagin' daytime work, ruining my nights...
[gets tired of all this sex/psychological talk]
[channels his sexual energies into the lucrative business of machete murder]
[creeps up behind, oh, let's say, icespeed, breathing heavily through hockey mask]
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah, but is that all that it is? I'm fairly certain from personal experimenting in this general field that most of the chemical effects one can get in the mind are magnified a good deal by the person themself, and pretty much voluntarily- chemoreceptors are only good for one burst at a time, meaning an intense, involuntary burst of... whatever, might last a couple seconds. No more, and that's not long enough to influence thought significantly. After that, the brain can go on to other, longer-lasting but less potent chemicals, but there's a kinda psychological gap there. As others have demonstrated far more dramatically than I have the guts to do, if you go under severe pain conditions, it hurts like hell for a second and you start freaking out and spasming, but after that if you have the right psychological control over yourself you can ignore even that. (I, personally, can't even ignore irritating itches, but I can demonstrate this ability in other areas). So it's not a subconscious, involuntary thing- it's something that's controlled semiconsciously by the person, and how they deal with it unconsiously is determined by how they were taught to in life. I've seen women who, at certain times of the month, can only be approached at a distance of several hundred yards, and then on tiptoe. I've also seen some who don't seem to change at all- and these are 18-year-old-girls, so it's not menopause or anything. It's how much they make it worse for themselves. It's much the same when one has a diseasae, or has just cut themselves accidentially, or got a nasty electric shock- it's nothing that lasts, unless you determine it should. And I'm babbling. Ah well, fribagin' daytime work, ruining my nights...
[gets tired of all this sex/psychological talk]
[channels his sexual energies into the lucrative business of machete murder]
[creeps up behind, oh, let's say, icespeed, breathing heavily through hockey mask]
*Screams holding head in hands*
Layout man! Layout!
This is like trying to listen to someone who talks at an incredible rate and doesn't need to breathe between sentences.
-
Sorry, I'd run out of coffee and without it I end up on filibuster mode at about four AM these days.
Anyway... you're distracting me. Pretend you can't see me in the shadows over here.
*hoor* *ksssh*
-
mmh...
-
This is also proof of the fact that women can do several things at once. Like my g/f can watch tv, read her book, have a coherent conversation with me and even speak on the phone.
what you seem is to describe also some males, one of them being me, while I can't to all that together, I can do at least 3:wink: .
-
well, if you can watch TV, read a book and speak on the phone at the same time, you have my respect :p
-
well I can, however my record is, reading a book, eating, watching TV and talking, but I admit it cant happen again :(