🕹️ New release: Lunar Lander Beyond

Forums > Off Topic > So much for humanity...

user avatar

Indra was here (20755) on 11/27/2009 8:16 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

The more I watch and study about science, the less "humane" I become it appears. Although I pretty much had my assumptions from self philosophy, I found it quite ghastly when there in fact exists scientific evidence that identifies who and what we are, biologically, chemically, genes, the works.

Most of everything in life as a living creature apparently boils down to our destiny to mate (anything else is a diversion of the former):

  • Concept of good and evil does not exist. All living creatures are inherintly "selfish" (read=whatever it takes to survive, or fulfill self pleasures). Survival besides staying alive, also refers to the ability to produce offspring thus maintain the survival of the species;
  • Men are instinctively destined to continously produce offspring (read=bastards) and will do anything and everything to achieve that purpose;
  • Women are instinctively destined to be materialistic, not for their own sake, but for the purposes of their future offspring. Women's maternal drive to choose a partner is primary driven by the financial capacities of the male...whether they like it or not;
  • Best partners are primary chosen by (surprisingly) smell. Body odor is the indication of a person(s) immune system. Persons with different immune systems will more likely to instinctively (through smell) attract each other, for the reason that the offspring will obtain both immune systems from their parents. Perfume somewhat distorts this instinct;
  • Love technically does not exist, only as a chemical response to the need to produce offspring. Thus, there is no such thing as unconditional love :p;
  • Attraction is a chemical reaction, not a matter of choice. The chemicals in our brain will provide (read=dictate) various "choices" to pursue the attraction, or be severly irritated when we fail to comply.
Among others (expect some variation of errors here and there). I knew life was a complete was of time. :p But I'm sure arguing GTA IV is by far more intellectually stimulating. :p
user avatar

St. Martyne (3648) on 11/27/2009 8:30 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra was here... wrote--] Perfume somewhat distorts this instinct; [/Q --end Indra was here... wrote--]

Well, that's the good part, isn't it? We've apparently have become so awesome to mess up with the DESIGN itself! Some women don't care for money, some men are gay, some people kill themselves for greater good and we invented perfume to mess up the smell.

user avatar

Indra was here (20755) on 11/27/2009 8:38 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--] Well, that's the good part, isn't it? We've apparently have become so awesome to mess up with the DESIGN itself!

...some men are gay... [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] Evolution is somewhat puzzling. Although homosexuality apparently is natural (our instinct apparently isn't that smart enough to care either way), some sexual tendencies defy even my inhuman levels of philosophy to understand its attraction. :p

Among others: Voraphilia

*warning, if you're under 25 and apparently smart enough to be curious, I seriously recommend you do not find the meaning of this word. :p

And I thought being sexually attracted to shoes was difficult to comprehend. :p

user avatar

The Fabulous King (1332) on 11/27/2009 8:42 PM · Permalink · Report

Vorarephilia (shortened to vore) is a sexual fetish and paraphilia where arousal occurs from the idea of being eaten or watching someone or something eating someone or something else. The fantasy may involve the person being swallowed alive, and may or may not include digestion.

user avatar

MZ per X (3017) on 11/27/2009 8:55 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

Must-see for the interested: Rohtenburg, inspired by the recent real case of Armin Meiwes.

user avatar

—- (1623) on 11/27/2009 9:02 PM · Permalink · Report

I remember that I was thinking in the same patterns when I was in elementary school. My views were mostly met with rejection and incomprehension by my peers, and I felt incredibly superior (and lonely) because of it.

I later identified it as some kind of intellectually cloaked, materialistic pseudo-philosophy, which I employed to conceal my own emotional deficiencies.

But whatever makes you happy, dude =P

user avatar

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 11/28/2009 4:19 AM · Permalink · Report

No, Indra, I don't agree with these views. And remember I live in China, where the concept of a woman marrying for money is not only accepted, but publicly encouraged without a trace of shame.

Everything you said describes brainless individuals who became slaves to their instincts. Even if the majority of people are that way, it's not the way we are supposed to be. The proof is that some people are not that way - which means everybody can stop being that way.

Science cannot - and will never be able to - explain what we are. Science deals only with phenomena, not with the essence of things. It can explain in detail what laws govern the movement of atoms or the stars in their orbits; but it will never explain the mystery of human heart.

And most importantly - love does exist! You just have to believe in it.

user avatar

Indra was here (20755) on 12/19/2009 10:31 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]And most importantly - love does exist! You just have to believe in it. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Now isn't that word the representation of how we got into trouble in the first place?

Belief vs. fact.
End.

PS. The human heart is in the brain.

user avatar

Maw (832) on 11/28/2009 7:57 AM · Permalink · Report

Sure, it's easy to feel underwhelmed and depressed by the world at times. I know do. But when you ditch your oh-so-trendy "everything sucks!" attitude you realise the world really is a pretty cool place, and that your desire for something better is like a child's desire for a world made of ice-cream.

Humans are selfish creatures. Between your business failing and your neighbour's business failing, most of us would choose the second option in a heartbeat. But here's the interesting part: your business is less likely to fail if you enter a business agreement with your neighbour. Multiply this effect across billions of people in trillions of situations, and you have a world full of people who are selfish douchebags...AND YET HELP EACH OTHER. I find that pretty amazing.

It's the same weird contradiction with love. Put it in a test tube and it looks mundane. Just random swirls of hormones and a desire to propagate the human race. But that's like calling the Great Pyramid a pile of mud bricks. I am surrounded by married couples who would take bullets for each other. If you explained the boring scientific origins of the emotions they're experiencing, would they care?

Ever since I was 12 I've believed in a God for whom there is no scientific evidence. But man, scientific evidence is way overrated. There's no objective basis for justice, morality, and any other human concept, but the world thrives because people believe those concepts exists. Remember, reason and rationality is just a way of arriving at the truth, not the truth itself.

But who gives a crap. The world is really just a life support system for Mobygames.

user avatar

mobygamer (92) on 11/28/2009 9:18 PM · Permalink · Report

1. About the survival, that is not necessarily true as well, some people commit suicide, because they do not want to withstand a certain situation or a future they depict.

2. Some men do not want to have kids... so anything and everything is a huge exaggeration, they might do it by mistake...

3. Some women do not even care about their offspring...

If you want to be intellectually simulated do the following:

Create a function that when given the number n(positive integer), will give you the nth prime number.

user avatar

Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 11/28/2009 9:33 PM · Permalink · Report

If you want to be intellectually simulated do the following:

I haven't heard about intellectual simulation since Taylor Mali's The The Impotence of Proofreading.

user avatar

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 11/29/2009 4:27 AM · Permalink · Report

I haven't heard about intellectual simulation...

LOL! One letter, and such a difference :)

user avatar

Slug Camargo (583) on 11/28/2009 11:08 PM · Permalink · Report

Hope you don't take this as a personal thing, but, why is it that all these brainy “what we call 'love' is just a chemical disorder that fades off within a few months” lectures always seem to come from bitter, undersexed people who seem to hold some kind of grudge against humanity?

Whatever the case, I gotta say I'm happy to belong to the inane, mouth-breathing, gullible crowd that insists in believing all that crap, despite the apparently overwhelming scientific evidence against it. Go team retard! =P

user avatar

mobygamer (92) on 12/15/2009 11:00 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Schadenfreude wrote--] undersexed people [/Q --end Schadenfreude wrote--] What if they never need sex(e.g. People that are proud to be virgin), then they never were or will be undersexed. Well, if they ever need to stop being virgin, they could go to virgin school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrbJOJbU4Ck

user avatar

J. P. Gray (115) on 11/29/2009 6:50 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

The funny thing is, quite in keeping with Goedel, that we haven't even begun to explain ourselves. Yet every few decades a new smug system shows up that claims to explain it all. Phrenology goes to psychoanalysis goes to neurobiology goes to genetics. To be fair, these last two show an improvement in objective methods, but in terms of explaining everything they're a long way from useful.

Environment plays such a massive role--while genetics and biology do determine some of the tabula, it's still pretty damn rasa. Outside influences are huge, and as with any massively interdependent phenomenon with uncountable inputs, it's nigh-impossible to pick out which percepts make which difference to which individuals. Even if we were to reduce human behavior to some sort of 2+2=4 simplicity, it would be another brick wall we would bang our heads worthlessly against, just because it would please us. People -don't- behave at all in their best interests in terms of biological fitness; in the end, that's just another input. If a dog's biological imperatives can be so twisted by outside influence that he licks the master's hand that vivisects him, I'm unconvinced of any pure deterministic primacy outside of environmental influence.

So "human" is what your society makes it. People will look to their neighbors and are bound to their past impressions when any biological impulse takes them--the vehicle for that impulse will take a form determined by those factors.

user avatar

beetle120 (2415) on 11/30/2009 4:28 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

My views are almost the same based on my scientific knowledge and observation I found:

  1. Yes all living creatures are inherintly "selfish" but sometimes this can lead to selfless acts for selfish purposes (like helping the poor to make them selfs 'feel good'/gain respect).

  2. Men are instinctively destined to have sex, that originally meant offspring but times have changed.

  3. Women are instinctively destined to have raise the offspring to give them the best chance a life, so in the modern world that means money and items.

  4. There has been a lot studies about smell of the (future) partner and it is overwhelming correct that smell plays a part in attraction but it is not the whole picture. Other instinctly things that we look for is the symmetrical shape of the partner and it is also known that females are more attracted to personalty and males for looks.

  5. Love does exist, yes it is a chemical response, but all our emotions are but not about how it works it's about how it feels. The love chemical may run dry but the friendship may not and that in itself is love, unconditional love.

  6. I have to disagree here, it is a mixture of a chemical reaction and intelligence. We have evolved beyond the instinct and made love and attraction something beyond all the other species on earth.

user avatar

Matt Neuteboom (976) on 12/7/2009 6:41 PM · Permalink · Report

The funny thing is, quite in keeping with Goedel, that we haven't even begun to explain ourselves. Yet every few decades a new smug system shows up that claims to explain it all. Phrenology goes to psychoanalysis goes to neurobiology goes to genetics. To be fair, these last two show an improvement in objective methods, but in terms of explaining everything they're a long way from useful.

Explaining ourselves? How about trying to explain the universe in general! It's a bad misconception that people think things like physics and chemistry are 100% true because in reality they are only systems that humans invented to help explain the universe. Classical Newtonian physics was the accepted system for hundreds of years, but then loopholes started to appear and quantum physics needed to fill the gap, and even modern scientists say that there are hundreds of unanswered questions with that system as well. We really aren't anywhere close to full explaining how our universe works.

So when it comes to explaining something as complex as the human mind? Even with our knowledge of genetics and DNA, I doubt we're even 10% of the way to fully explaining the thought processes of a human being.

All really science works this way, we never get an answer, we only improve our guesses.

user avatar

J. P. Gray (115) on 12/7/2009 10:10 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

I think 10% is an optimistic estimate! Genetics is, as I understand it, based on predisposition--your genes may predispose you to the display of a certain phenotype over time. With appearance phenotype is relatively simplistic, but behavior is a different animal entirely. When you add in polygenic influence and the effect of innumerable unique external influences that must start from each person's birth, the picture is supremely fuzzy at best.

Ontologically speaking, I believe the human mind is a finite state machine--but the number of possible states and their interdependence on a multiplicity of factors completely obscure any determinism from its possessors. Perhaps in the far distant future we'll get some greater idea of what leads to what, but that knowledge itself becomes an external influence--maybe we'll all be acting out our own little quasi-Oedipal conflicts, attempting to disprove the incomplete prophecies of behavioral science. :-P

As far as theory goes, you're correct. We can construct -useful- theories to explain behavior of entities in the universe, but it's difficult to prove in any case that they are accurate depictions of how such entities behave. The double-helix model of DNA, for example, may be seen more as a useful tool for conceptualizing rather than a picture of how such molecules actually would appear. I believe the first models of gas molecule physics excused their potential inaccuracy on that basis of usefulness, even though we now believe such models are more or less accurate in describing how such entities interact in the real world.

(sorry for the word salad!)

user avatar

beetle120 (2415) on 12/7/2009 10:32 PM · Permalink · Report

"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense, however scientists do."

  • A quote I got from somewhere
user avatar

MZ per X (3017) on 12/8/2009 8:51 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start beetle120 wrote--] - A quote I got from somewhere [/Q --end beetle120 wrote--] Got one, too:

"Any Universe simple enough to be understood is too simple to produce a mind able to understand it."

user avatar

Indra was here (20755) on 12/16/2009 6:59 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Erkenbrand wrote--] "Any Universe simple enough to be understood is too simple to produce a mind able to understand it." [/Q --end Erkenbrand wrote--] Which basically means, let's not learn for the fear that we might actually learn something. :p

Ghastly.

user avatar

MZ per X (3017) on 12/16/2009 9:05 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra was here... wrote--] Which basically means, let's not learn for the fear that we might actually learn something. :p [/Q --end Indra was here... wrote--] No, I think it just means we will never fully understand universe regardless of how much we'll learn about it.

user avatar

Indra was here (20755) on 12/17/2009 5:39 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Erkenbrand wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra was here... wrote--] Which basically means, let's not learn for the fear that we might actually learn something. :p [/Q2 --end Indra was here... wrote--] No, I think it just means we will never fully understand universe regardless of how much we'll learn about it. [/Q --end Erkenbrand wrote--] Yes, that is one way of putting it. But hasn't past arguments of "incapability to learn or advance" been refuted one too many times with the discoveries of new technologies?

Principle of population by Malthus comes to mind.

user avatar

J. P. Gray (115) on 12/19/2009 5:25 PM · Permalink · Report

But Malthus is a shining example of "incapability to learn or advance" in one aspect that holds true today--the empirical predictive modeling of human behavior and its effects, on a mass scale or otherwise. We have no way of identifying all relevant variables, states, etc.--the best we can hope for is to identify more and more of these, but even the best current models operate at degrees of abstraction and error far below any reasonable deterministic standard.

user avatar

Indra was here (20755) on 12/19/2009 10:29 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start J. P. Gray wrote--]But Malthus is a shining example of "incapability to learn or advance" in one aspect that holds true today--the empirical predictive modeling of human behavior and its effects, on a mass scale or otherwise. We have no way of identifying all relevant variables, states, etc.--the best we can hope for is to identify more and more of these, but even the best current models operate at degrees of abstraction and error far below any reasonable deterministic standard. [/Q --end J. P. Gray wrote--] Aye. In this regard, we might say that science if sarcastically put is nothing more than an "educated guess" (i.e., nature may be an exact science, but our ability to perceive, observe, and analyze nature is not). Though my basic point is that some guesses (empirical science) are indeed better than others (non empirical rhetorics).

In an optimistic light, I would probably rephrase your sentence into "we currently have no way of identifying all relavant variables...due to the limitations of current technologies."

In an negative light, I would also add that, when we do, it will probably be light years after our generation. But at least, through science in some degree, the level of non-empirical assumptions at a certain pace are being narrowed down with each advancement of research (well, except probably social sciences :p).