Determinism? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Determinism?

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 1 (view)

Determinism? Posted: 8/9/2007 9:51:52 AM
Hey all, nice to see these boards are still up and running happy. I havent been on here for a while because school had been crazy, work too, and me and my gf went monogamous :D One more year of philosophy done, almost done my bachelors, working on my thesis, and to celebrate I'm going to go over the issue of free will as viewed through the lens of biological determinism, this has been one of the most difficult areas for me to reconcile with over the last year. the more intricate details and arguments are a little long winded to discuss here, but assuming a physicalist structure in the universe, as well as a causal chain view of physical events - which states that the only things that exist are physical events, and the only thing which can cause a physical event is another physical event. The first assumption, if taken leads to the second assumption as a conclusion. Now the application of the issue is much more complicated, because if physical events are connected within a causal chain, free will is an illusion. Specifically this applies to the physical events within our brains. As a reasonable interpretation of how neural events happen - stimuli, which are produced via outside causal chains of events, are transmitted through our senses which activates the nervous system, which sets off a chain of physical events within the neurons of the nervous system, the physical reaction of the body to the stimuli is a function of the stimuli itself, the current state of the brain upon the reception of the nerve impulses, as well as other neural factors such as active neurotransmitters (and quantities thereof). Where I began to reach confusion was in the realization that the causal chain model can hold - all the factors which make up our personality and personal decisions MUST be physical in nature if they are to have any effect at all, decisions aren't really decisions at all, they imply a causal chain that stretches back to outside the body. The issue that presents itself is that, free will presumes control over decisions, in the classical sense which is to say that at the moment of decision you have the option to choose A over B - and if the causal chain view of physical events holds, then you have no real option, the brain state, combined with stimuli X, will generate option A. This argument, in its full complexity, caused me great discomfort over the last year, and I managed to reconcile it around the end of last semester - The only real issue here is the issue which connects to moral responsibility, where one could disavow responsibility for an action being caused by a chain of reactions over which they have no control. My response is that while this is true, his/her brain state at the time of the amoral reaction was inclined toward that behavior, even though the brain state itself was a function of yet another (set of) causal chain(s), they were still the individual (as defined legally) who performed the action deemed amoral. Anyone have the same issue with determinism? any thoughts?

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 12 (view)

Social Darwinism! Posted: 12/16/2005 6:44:54 AM
Couldn't have said it better myself - Natural selection has been replaced by advanced sexual selection, with many contributing social factors to one's success at mating :) Also, there are many strong correlaries regarding biological basis of attraction - pheromones as well as "Major Histocompatibility Complex" preferences - this is a proven theory stating that women are able to detect pheromonal cues which lead them to find males with strong "opposing" immune systems so as to create offspring with the most effective and diverse MHC's as is possible. There are many other examples of attraction being biologically based. - there is also a line of thought that considers that biological evolution via sexual selection will lead us into a genetic "caste" system - I'm not sure how much stock I put in that, but philosophy often deals with taking an idea to the extreme to analyze it's implications, so you never know. Also, it could be said that monetary considerations are simply a part of social standing, everything in our "plumage" within our current domain of meta-evolution is related to social standing in some way, large or small, and can be categorized as such.

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 10 (view)

Social Darwinism! Posted: 12/15/2005 3:55:52 PM
But, one of the primary precepts of "natural selection"/natural evolution is the tendency of weaker examples of a species are unable to survive to sexual maturity and continue their genes, this has been mostly done away with, as even the weakest members of our species can pass on their genes. We changed the environment, so we initiated the beginnings of meta evolution. The fact that the contributing factors to our sexual/breeding success and survival have changed from primeval desire for sustenance and and intra/intergender competition for successful mating have been replaced by very different, but related modern concepts shows that our current form of evolution is in fact, not natural, but radically different from the concepts Darwin put forward, so its not natural at all :) just a thought.

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 8 (view)

Social Darwinism! Posted: 12/15/2005 3:29:38 PM
It's called meta-evolution, as mankind has reached a level where technology eliminates basic natural selection - even the least naturally "fit" human can still succeed in mating and passing on their genes - so the concept of natural selection as it applies to humans has gone out the proverbial window, to be replaced by social or "meta" evolution.

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 32 (view)

Whats an instant turn on for you Posted: 12/14/2005 9:05:53 AM
I expected a lot more fetish stuff, everything so far is pretty bloody tame turn ons... an abnormal fetish for head rubbing, absolute instant turn on, and an abnormally strong fetish for miniskirts and/or white stockings - just white, no other color does anything for me, see, this is the kinda weird shit people should be posting. Pretty much everything that people are posting about are just preferences in people - lets hear the weird stuff turn offs... lack of experience, over-aggressiveness, lack of sexual confidence

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 4 (view)

Space and Time, the melding of science and philosophy! Posted: 12/14/2005 6:19:37 AM
I'm having a hard time figuring out what we're trying to discuss here - the experiment with the particle accelerator proves not that time travel is possible, but that it MUST be possible, in a single direction. Another good simple example using simplified physics to show the problem of simple velocity/time dynamics: metal craft, in space, orbiting the planet at a high rate of speed - on the outside it is equipped with a laser on the rear shining to a plate on the front, and an equivalent setup over the same distance is inside the "frame of reference" of the craft. Lets say the distance between the laser and the plate is 3m in both set ups, observing the action of the laser from the outside, its obvious that due to the speed of the orbiting craft, the laser had to travel slightly more than 3m, whereas within the frame of reference it travels exactly 3m - the intriguing bit lies in the simple physics equation V=D/T (velocity = distance/time). Within the frame of reference of the craft, it would look like V=3/x - where x is the time it took for the laser to reach the panel, on the outside, it would look like V=3.something/x. The difficulty arises when you take into account the tendencies of light - the velocity can't change - which means the time MUST change; to balance the equation, time must shrink. - just a quick proof that forward time travel is, most assuredly, possible - albeit a little complicated

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 28 (view)

Philosophy Challenge! Posted: 12/13/2005 8:59:02 PM
Wow guys, this thread has been an absolute wonder to read, thanks all; I wish I had come in sooner, I always miss out on the good ones - Evil, thank you for the kickstart, Brain, Vincent, Dave, and of course Wonka - who always has the most elegant of answers, I have yet to read a thread this good on PoF, this is what the forums are for. Nik Edit: Also - fishing for wisdom is tricky on PoF - you have to take the less coherent responses as comic relief for those with any real significance

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 12 (view)

Are men and women genetically predisposed to cheat? Posted: 12/2/2005 12:19:56 PM
Ok, this was an old post, but here is the dead on Bio explanation: Why we're genetically programmed to be monogamous: Simple. As a species we give birth to a small number of offspring, and it is in the interests of the genes of the parents to work together to provide resources for the child, to guarantee its passage into sexual maturity and the continutation of it's parents genes. In a classic hunter/gatherer society, a child is raised by a monogamous couple until approximately the age of 3-5, when the task is taken on by the group rather than the nuclear family. (This is a biological explanation as to why individuals feel passionate love fading after 3-5 years, also, it puts forward evidence that the drive we call love is actually biological in nature). Why Men cheat: While it is in the best interests of the male to ensure the growth and maturity of several children in a monogamous situtation; the physical reality of the mechanism lends itself to "spreading one's seed", essentially, a male can impregnate several different sexually vibrant, healthy females, leaving them to raise the young alone, but by sheer quantity alone, one can be guaranteed that some of these children would reach sexual maturity and therefore carry on the genes of the father. The compulsion toward young, reproductively healthy lovers is evidence that the urge is, at least partially, biological in nature Why Women cheat: The female biological mechanism its inherently more complicated than a males, in that the female is capable of a limited number of children in her lifetime, so it is in her best interests to ensure that each of her children will both A) Have the best possible genes and B) Be well taken care of (regarding resources). This double edged sword explains much about the approach toward sociosexual interaction. First, much like men's is toward reproductive health (what men generally consider "beautiful" are for the most part signs of reproductive health, apart from fetishes) women's preferences, at least in terms of a long term mate, lie in the domain of resources and financial stability, as well as finding a mate who is emotionally capable of the tenderness required to raise a child. While at the peak of the menstrual cycle, women find men with more masculine, defined, rugged features significantly more appealing than less masculinized men; whereas at any other time of the cycle, a women will find less masculinized men more attractive. This has been studied and found statistically significant. This shows evidence that women are biologically programmed to look for a dependable, kind and caring male to provide resources to raise children, and look for masculinized, aggressive males for the purposes of conceiving the children with the best possible genes - Frightening statistic - in Families of 4 children, chances stand at approximately 86% that one of the child is not the biological child of the acting father. How many of you are from families of 4... think about it. So, If men are biologically programmed to be promiscuous pigs, women are biologically programmed to be opportunistic whores. Which is worse? well I don't know, but when a male cheats his significant other won't spend 18 years of her life raising a child that's not hers Apart from this there is human will power, we are capable fighting many of our biological urges, many people don't follow this line at all, but these are the biological reasons we feel the urges we do

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 23 (view)

Just a little thought Posted: 11/23/2005 4:56:52 PM
Wonka, I love you, you always got my back :) hehehe

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 19 (view)

Just a little thought Posted: 11/23/2005 4:30:42 PM
Right, ok, admittedly, they might not have the same long standing impact, but egyptian religous beliefs predate christianity, and they were the first to conceptualize an immortal soul, although egyptian written language was not quite as eloquent or portable as more modern languages and therefore limited in its inherent ability to spread to a wider population. Also, when you want to criticise something (even if the flaw is obvious) point it out so a more specific answer could be attempted, thanks :)

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 16 (view)

Just a little thought Posted: 11/23/2005 4:02:58 PM
Wow, the Greek Tragedies, Platonic manuscripts, many pieces of literature/writing/religious texts have been around longer, and hold more respect in the eyes of many individuals; and you really believe being voted man of the year by time magazine is a valid judgement of the character of a man who existed 2000 years ago? (also you can't ignore the bias of christian based western culture).

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

Just a little thought Posted: 11/20/2005 4:30:08 PM
Reply to Sum1: I meant organized religion as a form of state control, To run a state without massive policing, another system of systematized morality must be put into place (enter religion) I'm not saying that religions require that individuals of differing faiths be removed, but to run a state under a single religious hierarchy, there must not be a following of a differing faith, as this would run directly counter to the religion-based government system, and in a state devoid of a strong police force, any strong opposing view could theoretically develop enough strength to overthrow the government system. Also, it creates an inequality of moral norms (as there is no fact based legal system corresponding to an agreed upon list of social and moral norms; but instead are instructed to obey the law of the divinity they follow) which would create tension within the populous of the state. Thanks for the opinions :D keep em coming

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 4 (view)

Just a little thought Posted: 11/20/2005 4:17:17 PM
I referred to immortality as being the powerful drive, Hinduism follows this with reincarnation, you are granted eternal life in other forms (forgive my knowledge if I'm wrong, but I doubt hinduistic beliefs dictate that individuals belonging to a differing faith attain reincarnation, and if they are permitted it; then I would assume that they are not permitted [referring to their doctrine] to attain a level of reincarnation which could be reached by... A holy man of that faith, for instance; this inequality is exclusion). Although I do recognize your point; some religions indeed don't use immortality as a driving force, Buddhism is an example; these religions, however (once again, forgive my assumptions), are not inherently judgemental of other beliefs.

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 56 (view)

making love on rose's Posted: 11/19/2005 10:05:11 PM
well, thats a lot of effort to not be genuine about it :)

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 53 (view)

making love on rose's Posted: 11/19/2005 8:53:27 PM
Best idea ever: I did this for my ex girlfriend, I ran her a bath, all incense and candles around, as well as a few well placed mirrors (you can do some neat tricks with candle light and some mirrors) run a hot bath and tell her to lie in it and wait a bit, come in with a bunch of rose petals, and drop them into the water one by one, saying something you love about them/a reason you love them for each one :) (added note: thought of this afterward but its another idea, collect the roses, frame them and label them as the reasons you gave )

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 5 (view)

Only 2 kingdoms Posted: 11/19/2005 7:54:34 PM
I heard a joke today and this is an appropriate place to put it, here goes: A rabbi dies and arrives at the gateway to heaven, the holy receptionist asks him his religion and instructs him to go down a hall and enter door #10, but be very quiet when you walk past door #9, he bows and obeys A muslim man dies and arrives at the gateway to heaven, the holy receptionist asks him his religion and instructs him to go down a hall and enter door #12, but be very quiet as you walk by door #9, he bows and obeys A Wiccan dies and arrives at the gateway to heaven, the holy receptionist asks him his religion and instructs him to go to door #15, but be very quiet as you walk by door #9 To this the Wiccan inquires "Why do I need to be so quiet when I pass door #9" The receptionist replies "Thats the heaven for Christians, they think they're the only ones here"

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 2 (view)

A question to all Posted: 11/19/2005 7:33:46 PM
... well, I'm not even sure if this will go up, apparently I was banned from posting threads on this specific board, I reviewed the rules and none were broken, also asked for an explanation. But yeah, thats why ** Oh I've checked my mail, a lot, I also reposted asking for an explanation. It was a long post, just a little analysis and creative approach regarding sex, a guy ripped me up about it (so the single user fighting thing might have been responsible, but I wasn't being aggressive at all)

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 163 (view)

What's your favourite quote? Posted: 11/19/2005 5:50:07 PM
- "God created man, and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor" - Author unknown Almost any word released from the mouth of Friedrich Wilehelm Nietzsche - "To live alone one must be a beast or a god, says Aristotle. Leaving out the third case: One must be both - a philosopher" - "Can an ass be tragic? to perish under a burden one can neither bear nor throw off? the case of the philosopher" - "You run ahead? are you doing it as a shepherd? or as an exception? a third case would be the fugitive. First question of conscience" - " Are you genuine? Or merely an actor? A representative? or that which is represented? In the end, perhaps you are merely a copy of an actor. Second question of conscience" - "The disappointed one speaks. I searched for great human beings; I always found only the apes of their ideals." - " Are you one who looks on? Or one who lends a hand? Or one who looks away and walks off? Third question of conscience." - "Do you want to walk along? Or walk ahead? Or walk by yourself? One must know what one wants and that one wants. Fourth question of conscience." (A collection of quotes from Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche's Maxims and Arrows)

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 87 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 3:47:11 PM
You didn't answer the other questions, don't give me scriptures, give me your interpretations, I'm arguing your opinion/interpretation of the scriptures, not the scriptures, they are vague and metaphorical, open to interpretation, and therefore not a good direct description of your beliefs.

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 85 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 3:29:30 PM
Ok, a buddhist priest, jewish rabbi, etc... individuals who devote their lives to their individual faiths and the pursuit of their individual religious beliefs... do they get into your christian heaven? or would you regard them as heathens to be "damned" I didn't mean do you believe in multiple deities, I meant do you think the supreme power referred to in all monotheist religions refers to the same source divinity .. any monotheist belief (although I would argue than polytheist religions are no less valid, in that the collective of deities could easily refer to the multiple facets necessary of a supreme power), there are many religions in the modern world which follow a single god, wiccan's worship "The Goddess" and the jewish religion worship Moses, and god itself, bypassing the importance of jesus entirely. There are other examples... but they are unnecessary to prove my point

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 24 (view)

What's a pagan? Posted: 11/18/2005 3:13:32 PM
figure out which one of these works for you pantheist (god is in everything) atheist (don't need a def.) polytheist monotheist call it one of the "-theist" words and leave it at that :) personally, I prefer the ring of monotheist, it sounds wonderfully neutral and simple

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 83 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 3:08:29 PM
So first, if an individual lives their life in the pursuit of good and "The Greater Happiness" (thank you John Stuart Mill), yet does not devote themselves to a set of beliefs laid out by a religious institution, will they go to heaven? Second, are you saying that all deities are valid, so long as they lead down a good and righteous path? Third, are you willing to say that the bible is the one true voice? or would you concede that other religious teachings/writings are as valid as yours.

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 81 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 2:55:35 PM
I do think there will be people in heaven who never went to church or knew who Jesus was but they were led by the spirit and lived up to the light they had. ok, I pulled the above message from you on another board, this directly contradicts the statement I quoted below Once he was judged if he was not christs then he would be devoured to ash like the bible says and forever would be gone from christ. eternal separation from God. So which is it? where exactly do you stand on this issue as an individual?

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 79 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 1:21:37 PM
What other consequences can god offer? trials in life? eternal damnation can be the only punishment for someone who's lived a life of evil, luxury, excess and indulgence. Are the consequences to be drawn out my man? you said yourself that man shall not judge another, but will instead be judged by god... Pose a simple question, if the consequences faced are not damnation, then what would happen to a man who lived the aforementioned life when he died? There's something very hypocritical, vain and self serving about a person saying I love you, god loves you, you are my brother and have fun burning in hell all in the same breath. You're arguing semantics, regardless of where one goes or what happens when one gets there, the intention is the same, you are condemned, damned forever with no chance of redemption - Note: I used wonka's quote because that's what you attacked, saying the bible doesn't say burn in hell, while it may not say it directly, of course it wouldn't its an elegant piece of literature, it says you will be "devoured into ash" eternally and once again with no chance of redemption. Also, it says if you are not christ's, once again outlining the egocentristic tendencies of christianity

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 74 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 12:54:19 PM
So, you're saying nowhere in the bible does it mention damnation, or any form of consequences for the actions of man?

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 71 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 12:34:33 PM
Egyptians created the first documented idealized idea of the soul, and built a belief system around it long before Christians did, 3500 years before he came around, actually By the fact that you're using the bible for your ammunition is proof that you only believe in christianity, and in saying that you are judging another man, ever man who isn't part of your beliefs. A truly forgiving christian god, benevolent, wise, omniscient, and omnipotent, would, I would think, forgive an individual for turning their back on christianity as an institution due to the atrocities it has been responsible for in the past, and the tendencies it displays in positions of power. You can't deny that individuals have used religious beliefs to further their own influence and greed, not to mention desires and If God is the same yesterday today and tomarro its sounds to me like there is only one way. HIS. What qualifies you to make this remark, you can't say god is ever the same, and regardless of that, his changes or lack thereof don't indicate in any way that there "is only one way" If anything, by means of all the different religions and stories in the bible, there isn't only one way, there are many ways to live a good life without any need for supreme guidelines

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 69 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 12:15:40 PM
Right.... so you're one of the ones who would honestly say, that every individual who is not part of your church, is going to hell, no matter how kindly their lives were lived, no matter how upstanding they were (in a christian sense)? If you answer yes to this, then there's no point in continuing an argument, because you're not open to any other opinion but your own

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 67 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 11:07:53 AM
I was raised christian, through and through, I know the story of the tower, although it specifically only refers to a division of language, not of faith (although I suppose that could be open to interpretation, like the rest of the bible, although interpretation of it in that manner is only opening another floodgate: why did god split us into separate religions, and why is this referred to in the scriptures), and you didn't asnwer my question, why did it see fit to design each religion with the inbuilt intention to exclude all other's from their vision of heaven. (once again, barring obvious examples of naturally tolerant religions)

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 92 (view)

What seems more believable? Posted: 11/18/2005 10:59:15 AM
OK I can't get a straight answer for this and maybe you can answer me this. How do you explain emotions and love and compassion? While there are flaws in the theory of natural selection as a process of evolution, primarily regarding the complexity of the development of protein strands in initial lifeforms (one primary premise of "intelligent design"). Biological processes and reproductive necessity can explain the development of most, if not all of our features, tendencies, and feelings. Example: Love - this can be seen in pair bonding of many animals that exist on earth, two individuals must work together to rear young, and its in the best interests of the survival of their progeny for the individuals to help one another to survive. Further evidence of this specific instance can be seen in that passionate love between two individuals tends to fade after the first few years, as children in the days of hunter-gatherer society, would be raised by a nuclear family until approximately the age of 3-5, at which time the responsibility for the rearing is placed more and more on the communal group than the nuclear family. There's the complicated one, as for compassion, thats not a human characteristic exlusively, social animals will often show compassion for group members, and we are social animals. Biological evolutionary explanations can be used to describe everything about us from why we stand on our hind legs, to why our cognitive abilities have developed so immensely. It can also be used to describe why we suffer from depression, become greedy, why we are programmed cheat on our significant others (regardless of whether we choose to or not, we are programmed and oriented toward it), why we form governments and societies, and yes, my friends, it can even be used to explain why we feel the need to have faith, and why we dedicate our lives to unsubstatiated claims

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 64 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 11/18/2005 10:36:24 AM
I would ask IT to justify the development of separate religions on our planet, if IT has power over individual will, why did it see fit to shatter the population of our planet into so many groups with beliefs that dictate that they must either ignore, discredit, or convert individuals of differing beliefs I would ask it if he intended for us to get as far as we have, cognitively, or whether he had intended for us to remain mentally stagnant from the time of christ to now. I would ask him if he really had a direct hand in the publication of the bible, the Koran, or any religious teachings in general. If I had god in the room with me.... I would lock the door, it can't leave until I'm done with my questioning "God created man, and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor" "All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours." -Aldous Huxley "Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 1 (view)

Just a little thought Posted: 11/18/2005 9:56:26 AM
My favorite thing to do in the world, is debate the nature of religion; excluding personal beliefs, and through many such arguments, I've developed one seemingly infallible argument against faith in religion as an institution. A truly good, benevolent and forgiving god, as put forward in new testament christianity, would forgive an individual for turning one's back on christianity (as an institution, not necessarily a belief), given the atrocities that it has been involved in and responsible for. You can't deny that religion was used, during the middle ages, purely as a method of control; it's the only way to efficiently run a state without massive policing (which is what we've resolved to use, as we accept individuals of differing faiths) Because the "control" element of all religions depends on all individuals believing and following the faith unquestioningly; and to be a singular influence it requires that all individuals who are "non-believers" to be removed from society (via exile or death [read: the inquisition]). This reveals a key element of the nature of most organized religion, which is the act of exlusion of anyone who is not of their own faith (and by exclusion I don't mean hatred of, of even disinclination to, they may even show kindness for those individuals, but by exlusion I mean that in their image of heaven; as immortality is the powerful drive behind many religions, barring obvious examples, only individuals of their faith are "allowed access") There, a perfectly rational argument using no basis of personal beliefs, put up yer dukes

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 1 (view)

I could use a review Posted: 11/18/2005 6:16:30 AM
Hey there, relatively new to the site and I think my profile could use a good editor, hehe, thanks

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 3 (view)

Have you read something really remarkable? Posted: 11/17/2005 10:53:50 PM
Hey, I put a good few minutes of work into mine but from what I've seen no, most of them are far from informative

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 27 (view)

cheating women Posted: 11/17/2005 2:35:13 PM
I've only ever been in one stripclub, it was with an ex of mine, she was working freelance for the night (500$ in 3 hours, jesus I wish I had tits) and she did a dance to my favorite song. But other than that, no, why u ask?

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 23 (view)

cheating women Posted: 11/17/2005 2:19:29 PM
Evolutionary reasoning regarding promiscuity outside a monogamous relationship: Men are biologically programmed to cheat so as to "spread their seed" so men are biologically programmed to be pigs (note than an individuals nature and strength of will could conceivably cancel this out) Women are biologically programmed to find a single mate who can provide resources for her and her offspring, so women are programmed to exchange mating rights for resources - This means that if men are genetically programmed to be pigs, women are genetically programmed to be whores... on to my next point they are also programmed to seek out genetically superior mates. Nearing the point of ovulation a female will find a male with stronger masculine features more attractive, whereas less masculinized faces will appear more attractive at every other time in a woman's cycle. Frightening statistic - in a family of 4 children, odds stand at about 90-95% that one of the children is not the biological offspring of the father (scary huh?) - So yes, we are all programmed to cheat, for different reasons, but at least when men cheat, women don't wind up investing 18 years of their life into a child they believe is theirs. (lesson to be taught, have your children DNA tested when they are born and don't tell her, because even though the statistic above is true, she'll still take offense at it. however, I would not say to leave her and abandon the child, but it could be useful knowledge if she decides to wrestle child support out of you) Thats my 52 and 1/2 cents

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 1 (view)

Heres another one, a touch more interesting tho :D Posted: 11/16/2005 9:06:12 PM
Right, here's another one, this one's a little more interesting than the last Enjoy, tell me what you think Sex is an extremely emotional topic for many people, be it due to cultural stigma, how one was raised, or a personal paranoia of it and it’s implications. The first step to identifying a legitimate philosophy regarding sex is to be willing to put forward ideas without any emotional bias or personal feelings; and since it is such an embroiled subject, many people cannot isolate sex from the emotions that surround it (love, jealousy, etc…). Being that many people cannot isolate these elements, then it could be said that the majority of people are incapable of developing a strong unbiased personal philosophy as to what sex is, the role it plays, and what is the best way to approach it. It could also be said that no one is capable of completely isolating sex from it’s inherent emotions, but those who are more capable would then be more well adapted to the development of a personally useful philosophy regarding sex. Personal note: Also, once one has established the ability to isolate sex from its inherent emotions and have explored what sex is to them then that individual will be more able to express their love and caring through their sexual actions. First, we must analyze what sex is, and how it is viewed by people with different cognitive patterns. Sex can be viewed as - An act of love - An act of greed - An act of generosity - An act of leisure - An act of pleasure - An act of satisfaction - An act of fulfillment - An act of kindness - An act of pity - An act of spite - An act of vengeance - etc… The way a person views a sexual act is a combination effect between the context of the encounter, how the act is performed (of course this might in fact be a function of how the act is perceived), and the mindset of the individual. So 2 individuals sharing a sexual encounter could at the same time perceive it differently, while one might see it as an act of love, the other individual sees it as an act of pity; this lack of balance provides a counterpoint on which many couples might find conflict to be common. Since it is very rare, if not impossible, for two individuals to see the act in the exact same light, I propose something radically different. Suppose sex wasn’t seen as representing any of the above listed emotions, but was simply treated as an act of expression, one in which an individual can utilize creativity. Sex is an act of expression and creativity, and these two elements are shared with any art form, so it could be said then, that Sex is in fact, an art form. Sex as an art form It is commonly said that the best sex is had when either individual is only in for they’re own pleasure, I put forth that this is in fact a fallacy, and that the opposite is in fact true. If one sees the act as an individual effort to attain pleasure, then, it seems to me, that the individual is presented with an extremely limited view of what sex is, and more importantly of what it can be. Consider, if one, during the act of sex, were to imagine him/herself not as in their own body, but instead in the body of the other, trying to feel everything they feel, it becomes much simpler to manipulate the pleasure of that person, the sensations that are created are the brushstrokes on the canvas that is the act, so it could be said that sex is painting with pleasure, creating an image of sexual ecstasy on the blank slate that presented itself before the act. I put forward that if both individuals who are involved in the act consider themselves to be the other person, and imagine the sensations that the are experiencing, the quality of the sex will increase dramatically, because you will be acting purely for the furthermost of their pleasure. Note: Argument against the “sex is better if you are in it for yourself” concept. - There is a difference between seeing the act through the eyes of your partner (and acting purely out of a desire to grant them pleasure), and doubting yourself, which is the heart of the concept of centralizing the pleasure around oneself. If you doubt your ability to please the other person, then that doubt will affect your ability, and thought tends to becomes reality, in this case. The central reason as to why “Sex is better if you are in it for yourself “ is because you’re not focusing on doubt, you’re focusing on your own desires; the idea of “Placing yourself inside your partner (figuratively, not literally)” follows the same idea, which is to eliminate any focus on doubt. However, the focus, having been placed instead on the sensations and pleasure being experienced by the partner, seems obviously more conducive to mutual pleasure, as long as both partners share this philosophy. Sex - Personal Discourse The theory I put forth has for the most part been put forth in the lines above, sex is best seen, for the benefit of the pleasure of each person involved, as an art form. As an art form it is also extremely conducive to creativity, which is one of the key aspects of “good sex”, as it were. “Good Sex” Good sex is made up of several elements, each adds to the quality of the experience, and each is based on a continuum (that is to say can exist at a greater or smaller value, or any amount in between). - How strong the motivation is toward the act - How strongly attached one is to the other - How well each partner knows the body of the other - The extent to which each partner is dedicated to the pleasure of the other - How well the bodies of the individuals physically “fit” each other - How attractive one finds their partner (physically, intellectually, and emotionally) - However, physical attractiveness does play a more prominent role relative to the role played by the other 2 in sex itself. On the other hand, a powerful leaning to either of the other two characteristics would offset this standard. - How open minded each partner is to the fantasies of the other - How openly expressive each partner is of their pleasure (feedback is everything) - This is all I have thought of thus far, but there are inevitably more variables. This list alone represents a large amount of variation in the potential quality of sex. and each variable is, we can only assume, given a different level of importance in the minds of each person, as each person perceives sex from a slightly different perspective. People, then, will find the most satisfying sex they are capable of attaining by finding an individual who carries the most similar perspectives toward sex, or who are capable of being malleable. Personal Note: I would also put forth the potential quality of sex itself is based on a continuum, where each element listed above adds to the total potential quality of sex capable by that individual. Therefore, two individuals, both sharing high levels of importance on the continuums listed above, would be able to experience a higher total level of sexual quality than, for instance, two individuals who share similar, but lower levels of the characteristics listed above, would still have great sex, by their standards. Evaluation of Quality - Personal Discourse The basic measure for a given sexual experience in any given encounter, should be the pleasure felt by the female, as in any given experience, so long as each partner shares similar traits following the theory written above, the male will achieve climax. This basic inequality in the act of intercourse (in that males are guaranteed an orgasm, while females are not) imbues a responsibility in the partner to ensure the pleasure and climax of their female partner. This of course, calls back to the aforementioned continuums, specifically, “The extent to which each partner is dedicated to the pleasure of the other”; presenting this as an important factor in the overall measurable quality of the sex act; at least by the measuring standard I put forth here, that being the pleasure felt by the female partner(s).

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 2 (view)

Something a little different Posted: 11/16/2005 4:31:53 PM
Additional Note: I know its really long, but let me know what you think, and ask for more if you want, a few are unfinished, just let me know which one you want.

Nick_Nac

Joined: 11/14/2005

Msg: 1 (view)

Something a little different Posted: 11/16/2005 4:28:46 PM
Ok, well, I'm a psychology student, minoring in philosophy, and I've always had a slight urge toward creative writing, so I decided to go about combining all of these :) I've written a few of these. There is one on: Emotion, Evolutionary processes, Existence, Friendship, Ideal love, Internal motivation, Life, Love, Mind-Brain, Sex, and Thought. I think I'll post friendship first, as its one of the more complete ones. Right, here we go. ---------Discourse, a contrast of love and friendship--------- Friendship is a form of love, in so much as it contains many, if not all, of the good characteristics of an intimate romantic relationship, but does away with many of the bad ones. If two close friends engage in conflict, in most cases, there will have had to have been a catalyst that activated the fight, which, in many cases, is a shared object of desire; and thus, the fight can be attributed to love, be it of objects/material wealth, or another individual. Whereas two individuals in an intimate relationship tend to be critical or suspicious of one another’s behavior (perhaps a call back to the desire to “own” the object of your love), this, in turn, leads to conflict and confrontation; the ever famous Lover’s Quarrel. Friendship does away with the desire to “own” the object of your affection, this might bring forth the question as to whether an intimate love relationship between two individuals could be strengthened if both partners approached the relationship as a friendship relationship before considering it as a romantic relationship. Regardless, Having seen that friendship does in fact do away with the desire to “own” the object of your affection, then that does away with jealousy. One doesn’t say that they “own” their friends, that would be seen as strange, and rightly so, in my opinion. This calls up the question as to why romantic love must exist at all, and whether or not it would be better to take no lovers, only friends. The argument against this of course is that everyone is compelled to find a single other individual to give their love to exclusively, at least for a while. During evolution, children would only need to be raised by a nuclear family until the age of 3-5, when the care can pass on to the larger family group, this explains why powerful love between two individuals tends to dissipate after this period of 3-5 years passes. Friendship is also superior in that respect, as it never dissipates without a reason, but love seems to fade of its own accord. What defines an individual in that situation, is how they respond, whether they accept that it has faded to something less passionate, and remember that they’re friends before they are lovers, then perhaps they can find the strength to rebuild the passion they had, on the other hand, as is the case with many, they expect that the passionate love that existed earlier will remain forever, which is an unrealistic expectation. These individuals will be more likely to either escape the relationship, or seek the passion that existed previously elsewhere. Conceptual Analysis - Friendship True friendship, not a “casual acquaintance” or a friendship of convenience, is based on most of the same positive concepts that present themselves in love, in that each person is expected to care for the well-being of the other and be willing to assist them wherever possible. But it lacks all of the negative connotations of love, such as jealousy, suspicion, and for the most part any spite. Envy may still exist, but once again, it is brought about by one person’s love and therefore desire, for the possession of another. One of the primary differences and very near to the most significant is the fact that friendship must be returned, one cannot be friends with one who isn’t their friend, while it is possible to love another without them ever returning that love. This fact alone proves friendship is far more stable, if not generally better; because one of the partners could easily fall out of love with the other, while the other still loves them, this would create an inequality and the individual who has fallen out of love is in a position to, with a clear conscience, or at least without betraying their own love, due to the fact that it doesn‘t exist, bring great hurt onto their partner by means of betrayal. Personal Discourse Personally, I believe that friendship is indeed superior to pure romantic loves, however I believe also, that in a powerful romantic relationship, in which both partners realize that the love will fade, and are willing to replace it with a loving friendship and companion relationship, then love can indeed last forever, however, it is generally subscribed to that once the passionate romantic love fades, then the relationship is doomed. I put forth that it is not doomed, but the metaphorical creekbed is laid bare (the relationship’s fluffy romantic venir has been wiped away). The relationship must be re-examined by each partner, to see if a true loving friendship, and deep caring do still exist, and these feelings are the basis for truly long-lasting relationships. - Friends should be willing to give everything they have to help a friend - Friends should not be willing to take so much as to bring harm to their friend - Friends should be able to look to one another for comfort and support whenever the need arises, and it should be given freely and without question - Friends should be able to trust one another, unquestionably

Show ALL Forums