Discussion Forums > The Lounge
A Whole New Light
elvikun:
--- Quote from: Saras on April 14, 2012, 05:29:35 AM ---A whole new world!
Sorry, I've been itching to do that since the topic started.
--- End quote ---
Dude. That just doesn't fit in at this point.
It's like walking in a room full of dead people and yelling "Surprise!".
Saras:
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 14, 2012, 05:32:16 AM ---
--- Quote from: Saras on April 14, 2012, 05:29:35 AM ---A whole new world!
Sorry, I've been itching to do that since the topic started.
--- End quote ---
Dude. That just doesn't fit in at this point.
It's like walking in a room full of dead people and yelling "Surprise!".
--- End quote ---
I was waiting for it to fit in, but after I went to bed you lot got an extra 5 pages on me.
kadatherion:
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 14, 2012, 12:30:52 AM ---
And what does denial of death have to do with instincts? We have no information on 'exposure to death', because "One does not simply die to acquire data on death". It is this lack of information that is common, therefore the conclusions are derived from the same basic premises.
--- End quote ---
Well, you make me more or less repeat myself, so it's boredom multiplied by two now, but to me the omnipresent need to explain the unknown every human has is blatantly one of the most basic instincts we have. Actually it's a mix of two instincts, imo. The first one is called curiosity, and is the spark that led human evolution and history. You'll notice how the more evolved an animal is, the more curious it is about his surroundings, and the more inclined to explore them it is. In the case of humans, capable of abstract thought, there's a whole new, endless world of pure intellect to explore. The second one is called fear: fear of the unknown. Humans instinctively fear what they don't know/understand just like they instinctively fear the dark: because in the unknown might reside dangers. What is more unknown than the concept of non-existence, especially as it is tied to the very realization of our most scary inner, instinctive fear of death?
If it weren't for these instincts, there would have been little need to find explanations that actually deny death. Some people could have come up with those, but at least as much people (and probably the vast majority) would just have gotten to the simpler, logical conclusion death is death: it happens, as shit does.
As they all felt compelled to find an acceptable explanation for something they didn't understand, they all came to the same conclusion, that death doesn't exist. You may use afterlife, you may use reincarnation, or you may use new age bs that's pretty much FF7's lifestream to idealize how your soul will keep living inside the grand scheme of the biosphere or in an actual embodiment of the living world called Gaia, all these differences are purely cosmetic. All tell you there is a soul that carries on, so you don't die, even if in concept only. Doing so, most of them also flatter your pride suggesting that you are more than just a bunch of meat that happens to be able to think by a lucky variable in evolution.
Only today we have some atheists that try to admit that it's just illogical and silly to think there has to be something only because we are too ignorant to conceptualize what nothingness is. And even between them I wonder how many are really comfortable with that deep down and how many are just diverting their eyes and looking at science in a religious way waiting for it to give them an equally acceptable answer about that. How evolution is often simplified in popular culture into something that closely resembles becoming a superior being is a bad symptom.
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 14, 2012, 12:30:52 AM ---It's not like I care about any church. But if you are unaware, Scientology basically was created by a failure of a science fiction novelist :P.
--- End quote ---
I know. The difference is the novelist behind Christianity was more successful. How he pulled it off I really don't know... I mean, imaginary friends, women born of ribs, talking snakes, gods playing pranks at you (sacrifice your son to me! / Ok... / trololololo you fell for it!) and putting around "don't press me" red buttons... I mean, come on, it's not even good fantasy, this God character is too whimsical to be taken seriously! :P
Well, I have never read the novels written by that Hubbard guy (that I remember of, at least), but they can't have been that bad.
Scratch that, just checked on wiki: I must have read at least two of his novels when I was a kid. And I don't remember a single word of them. So yep, the B-Book must have had to be better somehow. Probably comedic value, I guess. All those things about philistines and their foreskins... yep, it was pretty funny. And gross. Troma might have been behind the original concept.
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 14, 2012, 12:30:52 AM ---FYI: You conclude instincts do not change, but you are agreeing with a point stating that it does ::).
--- End quote ---
Nope, you misunderstood me. I just stated how the mind can redirect them. The instinct still is very simple: "I want to fuck and impregnate the woman that is the best possible mate to grant me an healthy offspring and its correct upbringing" (man, I feel such a douchebag... is it just me? I want to believe I can still love; ponies, maybe, not women, but still! :laugh: ). It never changes and it never can be elaborate, it can only be an impulse. The instinct doesn't even know what a "woman" is, even such a basic factor is understood only by our perception.
The perception of what is the best possible mate is what can change as the environmental conditions change. And even cultural imprinting, that pervasive imprinting that can leak into the subconscious too, can change that perception: that's how a body build that by logic would probably still not be the best one even in the current environmental conditions might appear to be so.
I'm not sure it's called rabbit therapy in English too, but the idea is pretty simple: take a rabbit, give it food, but anytime he gets near it electrocute the poor bastard. Soon enough two things will happen:
1 - each time it sees food it will become scared like hell;
2 - it will stop eating. As it has learnt that trying to eat brings pain (and pain means danger of death) his instincts are led to believe that on balance trying to eat is a more imminent danger than not eating at all. And it will starve to death.
The instincts haven't changed in the slightest, but its perception was twisted so much that the very survival instinct lead it to an inevitable death.
I know, it's an horrible practice, but believe me:
(click to show/hide)The asshole had it coming
The only way such instincts could change is through long evolution. Let's say (silly sci-fi, there's no way an artificial custom such as this could remain unchanged for hundreds of generations) we begin reproducing only in vitro. That's a pretty efficient way to ensure we have the healthiest possible offspring. And we do that for a looooooong time. It is safe to assume the reproductive instinct - as we know it - might slowly dull, as it isn't needed as much anymore, and individuals who don't waste too much energy on it have the same chances of "mating" than anyone else, thus in the genepool the factor "reproductive instinct" gets slowly "watered down" as it isn't anymore a trait favored by species selection.
We would slowly be less and less attracted to the opposite sex, up to the point we could completely forget the meaning of sex. Then the whole in vitro fertilization system crumbles down. Would we immediately revert to feel that same instinctive urge with the same strength we do now just because suddenly it is needed again? I'd say no, it would once again take a while, as it would need to be sharpened once again: those few that still have it sharper than others would be more successful at mating, and evolution would slowly find a new balance.
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 14, 2012, 12:30:52 AM ---Know what? The rest of the responses are messes beyond sorting through. I'm better off having Kind Arthur chop your house down with an axe while singing the trololololololololo l song.
--- End quote ---
The whole topic can be tl;dr; to this: It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit! ;D
And I try once again to make everything slide into something maybe less self-flattering than verbal diarrhea, but surely more fulfilling: boobs.
(click to show/hide)
rostheferret:
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 13, 2012, 08:18:08 PM ---@Rosh
Honestly, I asked you yes or not question, and you answerd with 12 paragraphs of text.
First you almost laugh at me because you believed I said bigger brain = more intelligence, which I haven't even said and then you link me an article which starts with "Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities" with "Read this"?
You say I'm confused about terms and then call hemoglobin carrying oxygen an instinct and say instinct is in fact a reflex?
You say that you "Assume" what something means after I told you what it means and assume it wrong at that?
Women with larger breats have lesser chance to have kids?
Insticnts evolved so men now are more likely to like large breasts and hips and I have said that?! You haven't noticed I was making the exactly opposite point the whole time?
If you call a muscle twich and how single cell works an insticnt, then how can I possibly ever tell you how instincts change?
What the fuck man?
Wiki... or softepedia... is not very wellcome, because it's about as credible as my left sock talking about acousto-optics. It's simply wrong on many occasions. Miquotations, stories, Joe editing after he had related class in the high school... Those people talking about telepathy back there can click edit as well.
... Could you just... Perhaps... answer the question at the end of the green text back there. That would help. And be peacefull end.
Edit: Actually, nevermind, let's just forget this, let's go back to defiling altars, fun times, fun times. How about that?
--- End quote ---
Cranial capacity =/= brain size. If you have a small skull but a large brain, you're likely to do some serious damage to it. The haemoglobin argument was an example of traits common to all mammals that is passed on genetically but doesn't change, I never called it an instinct. I gave you multiple other examples of instincts. Larger women have less chance to have kids, larger breasts is unnecessary beyond a certain point. Evolution has no need to promote either. A muscle twitch and cell function are both subconscious physical actions, an instinct is a subconscious psychological action. I used cheap resources because: a) I'm lazy; b) it stated my point for me [see point a]; c) I no longer have access to all my scientific journals; d) Do you really want to read a 30+ page in depth study of the cranial capacity and early intelligence capabilites with relation to teaching ability between early homo sapiens and neanderthals? Hope that clears up a few issues.
At least we finally agree that when you said overweight you really meant 'healthy weight.' No, I don't agree that instincts change. Rather, I think you're definition of what constitutes an instinct is incorrect; I don't think it's any more a conscious or evolutionary thing as much as it is a commonality between all members of a species; I think people who have lost certain instincts are likely to be considered to have a disorder, for example Congenital Analgesia (people who have lost sensitivity to pain). Lets try another example:
Evolution: A breast capable of producing milk.
Instinct: A baby suckling on a woman's breast to attain the milk.
The first one may indeed change over time, but the instinct of a child to actually breast feed? That won't ever change. Does that help at all?
P.S. Defiling the altars may have to wait, I got a plane to catch tomorrow. Try listening to this in my absence. I know it's not the same, but it's the best I have at short notice.
elvikun:
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 14, 2012, 10:16:24 AM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 13, 2012, 08:18:08 PM ---@Rosh
Honestly, I asked you yes or not question, and you answerd with 12 paragraphs of text.
First you almost laugh at me because you believed I said bigger brain = more intelligence, which I haven't even said and then you link me an article which starts with "Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities" with "Read this"?
You say I'm confused about terms and then call hemoglobin carrying oxygen an instinct and say instinct is in fact a reflex?
You say that you "Assume" what something means after I told you what it means and assume it wrong at that?
Women with larger breats have lesser chance to have kids?
Insticnts evolved so men now are more likely to like large breasts and hips and I have said that?! You haven't noticed I was making the exactly opposite point the whole time?
If you call a muscle twich and how single cell works an insticnt, then how can I possibly ever tell you how instincts change?
What the fuck man?
Wiki... or softepedia... is not very wellcome, because it's about as credible as my left sock talking about acousto-optics. It's simply wrong on many occasions. Miquotations, stories, Joe editing after he had related class in the high school... Those people talking about telepathy back there can click edit as well.
... Could you just... Perhaps... answer the question at the end of the green text back there. That would help. And be peacefull end.
Edit: Actually, nevermind, let's just forget this, let's go back to defiling altars, fun times, fun times. How about that?
--- End quote ---
Cranial capacity =/= brain size. If you have a small skull but a large brain, you're likely to do some serious damage to it. The haemoglobin argument was an example of traits common to all mammals that is passed on genetically but doesn't change, I never called it an instinct. I gave you multiple other examples of instincts. Larger women have less chance to have kids, larger breasts is unnecessary beyond a certain point. Evolution has no need to promote either. A muscle twitch and cell function are both subconscious physical actions, an instinct is a subconscious psychological action. I used cheap resources because: a) I'm lazy; b) it stated my point for me [see point a]; c) I no longer have access to all my scientific journals; d) Do you really want to read a 30+ page in depth study of the cranial capacity and early intelligence capabilites with relation to teaching ability between early homo sapiens and neanderthals? Hope that clears up a few issues.
At least we finally agree that when you said overweight you really meant 'healthy weight.' No, I don't agree that instincts change. Rather, I think you're definition of what constitutes an instinct is incorrect; I don't think it's any more a conscious or evolutionary thing as much as it is a commonality between all members of a species; I think people who have lost certain instincts are likely to be considered to have a disorder, for example Congenital Analgesia (people who have lost sensitivity to pain). Lets try another example:
Evolution: A breast capable of producing milk.
Instinct: A baby suckling on a woman's breast to attain the milk.
The first one may indeed change over time, but the instinct of a child to actually breast feed? That won't ever change. Does that help at all?
P.S. Defiling the altars may have to wait, I got a plane to catch tomorrow. Try listening to this in my absence. I know it's not the same, but it's the best I have at short notice.
--- End quote ---
Ok let me end this with a comical relief. You knw what are you reminding me of terribly?
Question: Do you trully believe in all parts of the bible, be it literal or figurative interpreatition?
Answer: You might be filled with hatred-hrrr and you might me blind-hrrr but STILL-hrrr Jesus loves, he still loves you as your father-hrrr the God-hrrr does! Amen! AMEN!
Question: Could you answer the actuall question?
Answer: I will! I will-hrrr! BUT! First tell me this! How do you believe-hrrr in science-hrrr and not in your Lord Jesusss-hrrr when the science proves God-hrrr too? Amen!
Question: But the Bible?
Answer: Oh yes-hrr! I indeed mean the second-hrrr law of thermodynamics-hrrr! Amen. Amen!
*Hrrr! (Have you ever talked to trully fanatical christian? Then you know what the hrr at the end of words means. It's a sounds which, sadly, can't be written)
** (If you do not see it, you may ask. Example: Using cellular characteristsics as a proof of certain though process, calling something with a "reflex" in name an instinct...)
What I'm saiyng? You dodge in the most annoying way I am familiar with -ignoring ceratin parts,let's twist this here a little bit, answering questions which never were asked- and then just go on about your truth. This is something life long scholars and experts do not agree on, so it would be rather strange if we did, but still.
So, to be honest, as far as I can express my feelings, it is "Fuck. You." (figurative speech, and you are definitely entitled to think the same back)) for this discussion, however, as far as I can express the feelings towars you personally, it's "Ok man, that was cool, let's aree that we disagree, let's go have a beer."(figurative speech). So let's just go with the second one and be all merry and happy. Fair enough?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version