flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > a lady told me this

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
kohlrak wrote:
Are we really improving? Ultimately, for the sake of making such happiness easy, people would avoid teaching each other things so novel ideas could slowly be introduced at a determined rate.
We don't always improve, there are bad situations, the world is not a paradise. But it's the trying, the mentality of trying to do it, that matters.

There's a whole lot of difference between "I tried to do something, but failed" and "I couldn't care less about doing anything other than taking my daily dose". In thinking, in determination, in mentality, we are all powerful just like god. So how do we use such all-powerfulness in our thinking? Waste it?

Of course we are not all-powerful in the physical world... but the mind is what matters.

kohlrak wrote:
You said your experience is that of an outsider. You don't understand christianty or any religion as a member of that religion, but by relying on others to experience and learn rules and beliefs for you.
hmm I never said my experiences are religious!
those were only conclusions i drew, if christianity is true etc... this philosophy of mine is not bound or based on religion!

Now I see the confusion, sorry. Smile

kohlrak wrote:
Elaborate, I'm not familiar with the movie. Razz
The machines had to harvest "human energy" (I know, ignore that physics flaw, let's just say the energy is huge -- because the potential of humans to do something is). Of course no human would want that, but to keep them under control, it gave them the illusion that they are in a real world (the "matrix")... they didn't know they are harvested, heck, as long as their illusion was good, most of them would choose to stay in the matrix (after all the 'real world' was much more harsh). Why would such people even deserve to be in the 'real world' since they are perfectly comfortable with their illusions and don't 'contribute' thus to the real world in any way?

(by contribute I don't mean necessarily in a positive way, I mean any form of interaction with consequences other than just getting more illusions!)

kohlrak wrote:
In which case, the book, story, and movie are only good for the writer. The movies, books, and stories can only do good if the ones who enjoy them actually use the knowledge provided by them. However, this is seldom the case, pleasure or not.
The books are there even if no one is to read them! Furthermore, assuming one does transcend into Heaven or some sort of afterlife, you -- the writer -- have done something to look back at, and are determined to expand yourself instead of stagnating. Can you say why Heaven would be different than your life? After all, you are actually telling yourself your life is as meaningless as a small temporary window constantly repeating itself (i.e pleasure over and over again) with no new expansion, no new intellect, nothing. Exactly why would you go to Heaven? To repeat what you did on Earth forever? Aren't you ashamed of yourself that Heaven came and you're no better than you were 50 years ago (assuming, in this example, that it's only pleasure you seek)? What do you need another infinite years for? It's obvious nothing changes, so why would god bother?

There is a big difference between "getting" pleasure but not being your goal and seeking it as a goal in itself. Sometimes people get stuff they don't want, that doesn't mean they are selfish -- it is only when they do what they do because of what they seek that they become corrupted. i.e a selfless person getting money is still the same good person -- someone who only does good deed because of rewards is NOT a good person.

You see, pleasure is always the same. It never expands upon itself. It's pure stagnation, mentally speaking. Mental evolution is the stage we are at now, we're past natural selection (obviously, especially with medicine and all) and past social evolution.

kohlrak wrote:
I'm seeing what's above, but I don't see where you justify your arguments when it would require that humans be no smarter or capable than rats.
It wasn't being smart that was the issue.

Would you rather live a short life with pleasure as a goal or an infinite/long life with no pleasure but with intellectual activities as goal?

That's what the rats did.

kohlrak wrote:
Supposedly, in either place you aren't ment to worry about lasting. Razz
lol yeah I see now I worded myself really bad Laughing

I meant, you wouldn't last in Heaven if you were seduced by illusions -- means you go to Hell.

kohlrak wrote:
I'm suggesting that humans typically don't make major improvements by themselves in the short lifespan of humanity. If improvement is all that mattered, then humans wouldn't need forgiveness so long as they inevitably improve.
asking for forgiveness is an improvement in itself! if you do it honestly, you just improved your behavior and your morals...

because after all doing it honestly is what matters.

furthermore it's the thought that counts -- you can improve that fast. It's TRYING that counts, not the act itself.

kohlrak wrote:
He could've created man in heaven, but he didn't. Man was created in the garden of Eden, with the assumption that man wouldn't be stupid enough to seek power, but blindly rely on the lord. It's not like there was some big rat test to find out which thing made humans sin the easiest. The only command was to not eat of the tree.
knowledge they sought, suffering is also knowledge. Furthermore, angels were created in Heaven, man was never supposed to be there as man (but only as souls that's after man was given mortality). If God created man in heaven he would be called an angel, which he did.

kohlrak wrote:
My point being, that you inevitably loose all happiness when understanding is acquired. I'm suggesting that once you understand why you are happy from knowledge, you will no longer seek it, because it will no longer be able to make you happy.
Understanding itself should make you happy.

This is one improvement, for instance.

If it doesn't, you should try to improve that area of happiness and shift what stuff makes you happy. Razz

kohlrak wrote:
Ignorance is not bliss because of stupidity by choice? Bliss is bliss regardless of reason. Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't believe improvement is bad, however I am suggesting that pleasure is necessary for desire to improvement, especially in a society as selfish as the one existant today.
at least you admit that today's society is selfish. Do you think god's rules, in religion case, become more 'soft' because today's society is more selfish overall? That's no excuse to not TRY yourself to improve. Wink

kohlrak wrote:
Not so. Pleasure would be taking that code, removing it, and adding it again with one extra instruction.
Huh? Brain scans show the same thing the next day in pleasure... actually they show less, because it's harder to attain the second time (first time feels best). The "total level" of pleasure has a capped maximum value. You never IMPROVE yourself, so you might write another instruction.

But limited at 5 instructions max, say. It's an illusion, after all.

kohlrak wrote:
You speak as if the motivation of pleasure causes no changes aside from wasting energy. As if humanity willingly provides pleasure to everyone so that they do not have to improve themselves. This is surely not the case.
Explain what change does sex (not reproduction), drugs, alcohol, etc...

what, by themselves, do they provide?

if the human MUST be motivated by these, I'd say such human needs to improve his motivations! That was my whole point with the improvement talk.


Let's put this differently. A human who is motivated the same way by 1 dose per day is MUCH IMPROVED compared to another one who needs 5 doses per day for the same motivation. One who needs ZERO doses for motivation is the best, obviously. THIS is what you have to improve, how you become motivated.

It's like the difference between a CPU that has the same performance (motivation) but using 5x the energy (pleasure needed for that motivation)... ideally best one is to use 100% of the energy into computations and ZERO into excess heat... trying to achieve that, to improve it, that's what constitutes technical evolution.

And in human case, that's what is mental evolution, or mental improvement.

And it's why cyborgs will be, sadly, plain better than us. I hope humanity will see this once again before we become replaced with cyborgs (like we replace old gadgets with more efficient ones), because we do have hidden potentials that we STUBBORNLY refuse to use.

Ok I think I made myself clear this time.

kohlrak wrote:
Alas, there is a matrix programmed for people to become self-righteous, so that the matrix has exclusive control over pleasures for the purpose of controlling people into following the matrix's will, so that the matrix's pleasures are sought after. Often illusion of exclusive power (righteousness, law, physical power, etc), riches, abilities, etc are pretty well sought after by such people. Ah, the matrix is the leaders of "academic fields" and politicians, replacing the matrix of old.
Except that, in my case (not matrix), if you choose to improve, you are not controlled. You only become controlled when you accept to be subdued by illusions and pleasures... I mean, if you do that, it's not like you can even know the difference between the real world and the matrix, so you wouldn't care anyway... Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 21 Dec 2009, 22:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Borsuc wrote:
The issue is that pleasure is bad.


Image

Smile
Post 22 Dec 2009, 00:15
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Laughing
Post 22 Dec 2009, 00:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
We don't always improve, there are bad situations, the world is not a paradise. But it's the trying, the mentality of trying to do it, that matters.

There's a whole lot of difference between "I tried to do something, but failed" and "I couldn't care less about doing anything other than taking my daily dose". In thinking, in determination, in mentality, we are all powerful just like god. So how do we use such all-powerfulness in our thinking? Waste it?

Of course we are not all-powerful in the physical world... but the mind is what matters.


You're off the base of my argument here. Way off base. I'm suggesting that if knowledge and improvement lead to happiness, just like other pleasures, it would be controlled. Oh wait! That's already happening! Razz

Quote:
hmm I never said my experiences are religious!
those were only conclusions i drew, if christianity is true etc... this philosophy of mine is not bound or based on religion!

Now I see the confusion, sorry. Smile


I know this, but you are still making judgement on my arguments claiming that some of your counter arguments are of christianty (and other religions in general), and they are clearly not.

Quote:
The machines had to harvest "human energy" (I know, ignore that physics flaw, let's just say the energy is huge -- because the potential of humans to do something is). Of course no human would want that, but to keep them under control, it gave them the illusion that they are in a real world (the "matrix")... they didn't know they are harvested, heck, as long as their illusion was good, most of them would choose to stay in the matrix (after all the 'real world' was much more harsh). Why would such people even deserve to be in the 'real world' since they are perfectly comfortable with their illusions and don't 'contribute' thus to the real world in any way?

(by contribute I don't mean necessarily in a positive way, I mean any form of interaction with consequences other than just getting more illusions!)


And such people are happily under an illusion today. Such people get stepped on, and when they realize that there is more pleasure in finding better illusions, they seek them. Razz

Quote:
The books are there even if no one is to read them! Furthermore, assuming one does transcend into Heaven or some sort of afterlife, you -- the writer -- have done something to look back at, and are determined to expand yourself instead of stagnating. Can you say why Heaven would be different than your life? After all, you are actually telling yourself your life is as meaningless as a small temporary window constantly repeating itself (i.e pleasure over and over again) with no new expansion, no new intellect, nothing. Exactly why would you go to Heaven? To repeat what you did on Earth forever? Aren't you ashamed of yourself that Heaven came and you're no better than you were 50 years ago (assuming, in this example, that it's only pleasure you seek)? What do you need another infinite years for? It's obvious nothing changes, so why would god bother?


You keep making it as if pleasure is the problem in religion. Pleasure is not the problem in religion (as said before, many religions promise a heaven of pleasure!), but how you seek that pleasure and whether or not you're willing to share it with others. The methods of seeking this pleasure are considered improvement.

Quote:
There is a big difference between "getting" pleasure but not being your goal and seeking it as a goal in itself. Sometimes people get stuff they don't want, that doesn't mean they are selfish -- it is only when they do what they do because of what they seek that they become corrupted. i.e a selfless person getting money is still the same good person -- someone who only does good deed because of rewards is NOT a good person.


Even with selfish goals, there is a difference between one who would con someone and someone who would rather not deprive someone else of their justified pleasure. That is also the difference between a corrupt person and one who is willing to earn their reward of pleasure. Moreover, that selfless person could become selfish with that money. Does that person give it away knowing that s/he will become selfish, or does s/he give it away so that they can find pleasures that won't corrupt them and so that someone who will not be corrupted can have that pleasure?

Quote:
You see, pleasure is always the same. It never expands upon itself. It's pure stagnation, mentally speaking.


Since pleasure is the same, people know what to look for. Why do we go after drugs more than knowledge? Because we know where to find drugs. We know how to use drugs. We know drugs when we see them. Do we know where to find improvement? Do we know how to use improvement? Do we know improvement when we see it? No, otherwise improvement would be much more sought after. I find it quite interesting how many people I have found seeking improvement as soon as they know how to achieve it, believe it or not. Every day on the internet, i see people who are learning english, simply to "improve" themselves. Interestingly enough, they are devoted enough to learn english, but when other pleasures come about, some take precedence, others do not.

Quote:
Mental evolution is the stage we are at now, we're past natural selection (obviously, especially with medicine and all) and past social evolution.


I would say that's far from the truth. There is PLENTY of social evolution (see all the bigotry against certain races, in favor of certain races, against religious groups, in favor of religious groups, etc even here on these boards) to be had. Natural selection is far from quitting. There are many improvements we could acheive to survive natural selection, but we have not improved in those areas far enough yet. We have improved, but there's still room for more improvement.

Quote:
It wasn't being smart that was the issue.

Would you rather live a short life with pleasure as a goal or an infinite/long life with no pleasure but with intellectual activities as goal?

That's what the rats did.


Organism A lived a short, pointless life in situation A. Therefore, organism B will also live a short, pointless life in situation A. It couldn't possibly be because organism A typically does live short, pointless lives to begin with. Organism B couldn't possibly have something that organism A didn't to help them react differently in situation A. Razz

Quote:
lol yeah I see now I worded myself really bad Laughing

I meant, you wouldn't last in Heaven if you were seduced by illusions -- means you go to Hell.


Supposedly, only Lucifer screwed up in Heaven. I don't know about other religions, though. However, I'm under the expectation that God will no longer let anyone into his kingdom who will corrupt. Remember, it took Lucifer in Christianity and Judaism to make Eve sin, and it took Eve to make Adam sin.

Quote:
asking for forgiveness is an improvement in itself! if you do it honestly, you just improved your behavior and your morals...

because after all doing it honestly is what matters.


Not true. I could ask god forgiveness for using his name in vain, and honestly wish forgiveness. However, i will use his name in vain again tomorrow.

Quote:
furthermore it's the thought that counts -- you can improve that fast. It's TRYING that counts, not the act itself.


True, it is said that the path to hell is paved with good deeds. Intent IS important, however there are still two degrees of honest intent. There's the intent to do better, then there's the other intents to do it again. Improvment is to not listen to those other intents. Honestly, does anyone in the world want to be evil? Certainly not, they simply have no control over themselves. Many people seem to be quite fond, however, of putting "ultimate pleasure" before immediate pleasures. This is the difference between the human and the rat.

Quote:
knowledge they sought, suffering is also knowledge. Furthermore, angels were created in Heaven, man was never supposed to be there as man (but only as souls that's after man was given mortality). If God created man in heaven he would be called an angel, which he did.


Familiar with Elijah and Enoch? When i say Enoch, i do not mean Cain's son, but Jared's son. It is said that Elijah and Enoch did not die.

Quote:
Understanding itself should make you happy.


Indeed, but it is also only temporary.

Quote:
This is one improvement, for instance.

If it doesn't, you should try to improve that area of happiness and shift what stuff makes you happy. Razz


You mean try another drug?

Quote:
at least you admit that today's society is selfish. Do you think god's rules, in religion case, become more 'soft' because today's society is more selfish overall? That's no excuse to not TRY yourself to improve. Wink


Surely not. If society is on an inevitable path to hell (which i believe it is), then the best thing for me to do is try to slow it down as much as possible. I believe society today is more selfish, but I also believe that human beings were always selfish, only they increasingly grow moreso. People today seek more artificial pleasures than people of times before. People of old studied math for entertainment. Artificial pleasure was not as easy as it is now. Today, people are afraid of math. Math is too difficult, and is unnecessary if someone else can do the work for them. Alas, those people shall suffer, for when they cannot do the math for themselves and no one will do it for them, their losses shall be their losses.

Quote:
Huh? Brain scans show the same thing the next day in pleasure... actually they show less, because it's harder to attain the second time (first time feels best). The "total level" of pleasure has a capped maximum value. You never IMPROVE yourself, so you might write another instruction.

But limited at 5 instructions max, say. It's an illusion, after all.


The happiness of discovery is also gone the next day. What you did to get your pleasure are the instructions. Those actions will forever change the world. Once the program is run and continues to run (your actions), you often lock away the source code (the pleasure). When you improve yourself, your improvements (your program) will change you and *MAYBE* the rest of the world forever, while you leave your source code out for others to compile and run that program.

Quote:
Explain what change does sex (not reproduction), drugs, alcohol, etc...

what, by themselves, do they provide?


The quest and how one conducts themselves in the quest is what is provided.

Quote:
if the human MUST be motivated by these, I'd say such human needs to improve his motivations! That was my whole point with the improvement talk.


Do we not when we seek these? Humans steal others' pleasures, so we make laws to protect our pleasures from being taken away from us. Is that not even a minor improvement? Is there such a thing as a selfless person? Or is the difference between selfless and selfish that a selfless person seeks plesure in ways that improve, while a selfish person seeks ways that either do not improve or destroy.

Quote:
Let's put this differently. A human who is motivated the same way by 1 dose per day is MUCH IMPROVED compared to another one who needs 5 doses per day for the same motivation. One who needs ZERO doses for motivation is the best, obviously. THIS is what you have to improve, how you become motivated.

It's like the difference between a CPU that has the same performance (motivation) but using 5x the energy (pleasure needed for that motivation)... ideally best one is to use 100% of the energy into computations and ZERO into excess heat... trying to achieve that, to improve it, that's what constitutes technical evolution.


You have it backwords. You don't get motivated much after pleasure, but when you seek that pleasure beforehand. One who needs 5 doses a day is more motivated than one who needs only one dose to be happy. If each dose is an hour of work, the work necessary to be done would be done by the more improved individual who seeks those 5 doses, rather than by the individual who will only work for 1 hour. An individual who works for 0 hours is useless.

Quote:
And it's why cyborgs will be, sadly, plain better than us. I hope humanity will see this once again before we become replaced with cyborgs (like we replace old gadgets with more efficient ones), because we do have hidden potentials that we STUBBORNLY refuse to use.


A cyborg needs more motivation than we do, actually. Cyborgs are lazy, for everything they need is provided for them. A cyborg need not improve, lest there is a threat to it. Therefore, it shall never impove, lest we improve and threaten it.

Quote:
Except that, in my case (not matrix), if you choose to improve, you are not controlled. You only become controlled when you accept to be subdued by illusions and pleasures... I mean, if you do that, it's not like you can even know the difference between the real world and the matrix, so you wouldn't care anyway... Wink


It seems that you yourself are under the control of that matrix. Razz You are advocating the cause and spread of this matrix's power. You assume to know what the real world is (your matrix) and how it is different from another matrix, yet you are still narrowly looking not from the outside, but from within another matrix. As I am not a part of your matrix, I see all the problems of your matrix. Although I am still trapped in mine, I do not contain all the faults of yours.
Post 22 Dec 2009, 02:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
@kohlrak: I think you are looking at this from the wrong approach. You're talking as if pleasure is the motivator that makes us do things, which is wrong, at least very wrong if you look at it from say, an animal point of view.

We already do pointless pleasure. Alcohol, drugs, even sex for non-reproductive purposes... these have a hidden goal. A practical goal. But when something smart uses them it's just downright BACKWARDS. The smarter you get, the more useless pleasure you do, this is downgrading. (animals, again, at least have a hidden 'practical' purpose)

So the animal evolutionary argument doesn't hold water here. In fact, I've countless times I'm ignoring it, because natural selection was a way behind evolutionary stage in human context... time to move on, we can THINK of the consequences, not like animals who have no choice.

Pain is also archaic... it's simply worthless for us, we should instead just have signals (if we could bio-engineer ourselves) and not such primitive feeling of danger (imagine if you're under surgery and you feel pain... just how "useful" it really is?).


kohlrak wrote:
You keep making it as if pleasure is the problem in religion. Pleasure is not the problem in religion (as said before, many religions promise a heaven of pleasure!), but how you seek that pleasure and whether or not you're willing to share it with others. The methods of seeking this pleasure are considered improvement.
sorry but pleasure is a body specific function and no heaven I'm aware of has bodies up there. They are called "flesh temptations" or somesuch... there's no flesh in heaven!

You're again mistaking pleasure with a mental happiness or bliss. The definition of pleasure I'm using is "flesh pleasure" if that is a better definition for you (as in religious texts) although I tried to give a more objective definition before.

kohlrak wrote:
Even with selfish goals, there is a difference between one who would con someone and someone who would rather not deprive someone else of their justified pleasure. That is also the difference between a corrupt person and one who is willing to earn their reward of pleasure. Moreover, that selfless person could become selfish with that money. Does that person give it away knowing that s/he will become selfish, or does s/he give it away so that they can find pleasures that won't corrupt them and so that someone who will not be corrupted can have that pleasure?
Frankly I've no idea what you're talking about. How can money give you pleasure? Confused

Please look again at the definition of pleasure I'm using.

kohlrak wrote:
Since pleasure is the same, people know what to look for. Why do we go after drugs more than knowledge? Because we know where to find drugs. We know how to use drugs. We know drugs when we see them. Do we know where to find improvement? Do we know how to use improvement? Do we know improvement when we see it? No, otherwise improvement would be much more sought after. I find it quite interesting how many people I have found seeking improvement as soon as they know how to achieve it, believe it or not. Every day on the internet, i see people who are learning english, simply to "improve" themselves. Interestingly enough, they are devoted enough to learn english, but when other pleasures come about, some take precedence, others do not.
If you don't try you'll never achieve it Wink (I thought I already said that)

Imagine pleasure is just a value from -1.0 to 1.0... -1.0 being maximum pain and 1.0 being maximum pleasure.

Animals use this as motivator for something they cannot reason with: like reproduction (they don't take drugs).

Humans, precisely because they are smarter, can use this mental ability in a horrible and wasteful way, as much as they can use it positively. They try to increase this variable to 1.0 by doing various things by itself, with no goal whatsoever other than that illusion of "pumping that variable up". Rolling Eyes

This is much, much worse than the animal case, because it is a conscious choice, 100% wasteful and, did I say it is a conscious choice? yeah. Smile

So in effect it's a downgrade of the evolutionary stage.


Don't you see how stupid this is? That if we were designed for that stupid illusion, the value would remain at 1.0 forever? We are abusing our own intelligence in a horribly wrong way.

Now I can understand why animals may not go to either heaven or hell, but humans to hell (i.e worse than 'neutral')... because this isn't just being passive about it, this is downgrading! Shocked

kohlrak wrote:
I would say that's far from the truth. There is PLENTY of social evolution (see all the bigotry against certain races, in favor of certain races, against religious groups, in favor of religious groups, etc even here on these boards) to be had. Natural selection is far from quitting. There are many improvements we could acheive to survive natural selection, but we have not improved in those areas far enough yet. We have improved, but there's still room for more improvement.
We fight natural selection with medicine Razz
And social evolution stage is coming to an end, I didn't say it's over (or did I formulate it wrong?)... of course "coming to an end" is to be understood in evolutionary scales, not a few years!

kohlrak wrote:
Organism A lived a short, pointless life in situation A. Therefore, organism B will also live a short, pointless life in situation A. It couldn't possibly be because organism A typically does live short, pointless lives to begin with. Organism B couldn't possibly have something that organism A didn't to help them react differently in situation A. Razz
yeah it has, it's called free choice. Well obviously I believe in that. And it has nothing to do with religious reasons btw.

kohlrak wrote:
Supposedly, only Lucifer screwed up in Heaven. I don't know about other religions, though. However, I'm under the expectation that God will no longer let anyone into his kingdom who will corrupt. Remember, it took Lucifer in Christianity and Judaism to make Eve sin, and it took Eve to make Adam sin.
Well whether Lucifer screwed up or not isn't the point, the point is that God doesn't accept certain people in heaven, so they go to hell instead.

kohlrak wrote:
Not true. I could ask god forgiveness for using his name in vain, and honestly wish forgiveness. However, i will use his name in vain again tomorrow.
but are you honest about making efforts to prevent that from happening? Wink

you know there's a big difference between "I promise I'll do better/my best to prevent this from happening again" and "I don't promise anything, easier for me" Razz

kohlrak wrote:
Indeed, but it is also only temporary.
well you'll never understand 100% so you could keep on, at least in your lifetime... however, what about engineering yourself and making that 'variable' read-only to 1.0? that would be permanent.

The point, of course, is that it shouldn't matter. The whole point of improvement was to ignore that useless variable. Useless from a rational point of view -- it's only useful if you can't think for yourself. Can you? I doubt you're an animal... you don't need that 'variable' to tell you what's painful, what's necessary for survival, you can think these up.

kohlrak wrote:
You mean try another drug?
No I meant, given my variable analogy above, find another way to pump it up to 1.0, a more rational and useful way than wasting time and materials (drugs) on it.

You know, stuff like meditation, which is much less wasteful (and even good for your mind and brain). It is said & has been confirmed that when you meditate properly you indeed are happy -- this is far, far different than a "flesh" pleasure which is abused.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm

Not to mention that flesh pleasure was never DESIGNED to be sought in itself, but provided an 'attraction' mechanism for weak animals who could not reason otherwise. Given that we are the smartest (but not the only ones who abuse it), we are the worst offenders of this design.

kohlrak wrote:
The happiness of discovery is also gone the next day. What you did to get your pleasure are the instructions. Those actions will forever change the world. Once the program is run and continues to run (your actions), you often lock away the source code (the pleasure). When you improve yourself, your improvements (your program) will change you and *MAYBE* the rest of the world forever, while you leave your source code out for others to compile and run that program.
How would it change it, by converting the energy into heat? Global warming?

What can you possibly change by moving that pleasure variable from 0.0 to 1.0 over and over and over and over again? Where's the improvement, all I see is a "while(1) loop". Confused

kohlrak wrote:
The quest and how one conducts themselves in the quest is what is provided.
Wasting money on drugs? Harvesting drugs? Is that improvement for you? I call it waste of cash and effort. Smile




Anyway I think I repeated myself a lot and don't have time anymore so I don't think these quote-wars are that good because it seems we address the same things multiple times.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 22 Dec 2009, 03:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
So the animal evolutionary argument doesn't hold water here. In fact, I've countless times I'm ignoring it, because natural selection was a way behind evolutionary stage in human context... time to move on, we can THINK of the consequences, not like animals who have no choice.

Pain is also archaic... it's simply worthless for us, we should instead just have signals (if we could bio-engineer ourselves) and not such primitive feeling of danger (imagine if you're under surgery and you feel pain... just how "useful" it really is?).


You're ignoring my arguments and essentially calling them bullshit, so i'm just going to ignore the rest of your argument, call it bullshit, save myself some time and move onto to other topics where users can do better than "that's just wrong, it's ridiculous, so i'm ignoring it because i'd rather win an argument than live in reality" mentality.
Post 22 Dec 2009, 19:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I didn't call them bullshit. I said they are irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

See, if you for example use the definition of pleasure that also includes what I call happiness, of course we're going to get contradictions, because we're talking about two different things. Wink

Likewise my definition of evolution, like I said before, is far more broad than just natural survival -- which was, to me, previous step. For instance, if we replace ourselves with cyborgs, I would call it evolution -- even though, naturally speaking, our species would be extinct (but replaced). To me that's simply a possible next stage of evolution.
Post 22 Dec 2009, 22:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Borsuc wrote:
So the animal evolutionary argument doesn't hold water here. In fact, I've countless times I'm ignoring it, because natural selection was a way behind evolutionary stage in human context... time to move on, we can THINK of the consequences, not like animals who have no choice.


While I will not oversimplify what is in reality rather complex, for the record, the universe does not revolve around humanity. Some animals, including humans, THINK about the consequences of their actions. The some includes all social mammals at the very least. Now unless you can provide me with some kind of obvious anatomical difference that makes humans have a soul and makes all other animals mindless...?

Given that fact you may want to reconsider what effect the mind has on reproduction (or whatever it was you were trying to proove) in the long run. Statistically.

LP,
Jure
Post 27 Dec 2009, 02:31
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
El Tangas



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 120
Location: Sunset Empire
El Tangas
I don't think we can ever escape natural selection. In fact, why do humans seek happiness, pleasure, enlightenment? Our mind is improvement driven, we allways seek a state that we consider somehow "better" than our current state. This drive was put in place in our minds by the process of natural selection, because obviously, any animal that was seeking a worse state than the current one, would die sooner.
Since our minds are far from being able to perfectly model the full outcome of our decisions, especially in the long term (we are only somewhat smart animals, after all), "nature" (the personification of the process of natural selection), has put in place a few overrides to take over as needed.
For example, if you think about it rationaly, seeking pleasure may well be a waste of time, as Borsuc says. However, we still have that drive, because it leds to sex, and sex often leads to child being born, despite our best efforts on the contrary. Because nature has put an override in place (sex drive), to prevent eventual extintion.
Post 27 Dec 2009, 15:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8904
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
so what if one day we know everything, escape from matrix, into a real world.
So what if we are god.
So what if we are in hell or heaven.

It seems to me, everything is meaningless now.
Post 27 Dec 2009, 20:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
DustWolf wrote:
While I will not oversimplify what is in reality rather complex, for the record, the universe does not revolve around humanity. Some animals, including humans, THINK about the consequences of their actions. The some includes all social mammals at the very least. Now unless you can provide me with some kind of obvious anatomical difference that makes humans have a soul and makes all other animals mindless...?

Given that fact you may want to reconsider what effect the mind has on reproduction (or whatever it was you were trying to proove) in the long run. Statistically.

LP,
Jure
When did I say humans are special because they're humans? Smile
They're special in the sense that they are the only ones who have gone to the next step in evolution -- possibly by killing other potential species (Neanderthals), so that's why we are alone. They are 'special' in the sense that they can reason about their "feelings" much more and unlike the others (others can reason but not to this extent). We are the only ones, it's how it is, doesn't mean that we are the only ones BECAUSE we are humans -- it's simply how it happened, you know, like also having a planet Mars in our Solar System.

Pleasure is used during the second stage of evolution, natural selection, where animals can't reason properly so they need a "push" from "nature" so that they continue to evolve. A human is in the next step and at the end of it (social evolution, not natural selection) and we are approaching the next one. Of course, to go to it one step at a time, we have to be that way -- if we subdue to our pleasures we are halting our evolutionary journey.

Again my conception of evolution is far more broad and philosophical than just natural selection, I consider that only just one step among the more grand scheme. Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 27 Dec 2009, 20:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
El Tangas wrote:
However, we still have that drive, because it leds to sex, and sex often leads to child being born, despite our best efforts on the contrary. Because nature has put an override in place (sex drive), to prevent eventual extintion.
That would apply, and DOES apply, if we are not capable of reason, it does apply to most animals. We are, however, on the next step. In fact, we even ABUSE it -- we seek pleasure itself. This is worse than halting, it's going backwards!

Nature designed pleasure only as a "push" for another activity, like reproduction. But we abuse and seek pleasure, which is worse than not being able to reason, since it's using reason the WRONG way. Drugs are one example of this, sex not for reproduction is another.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 27 Dec 2009, 20:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Borsuc wrote:
When did I say humans are special because they're humans? Smile
They're special in the sense that they are the only ones who have gone to the next step in evolution


...

Quote:
Pleasure is used during the second stage of evolution, natural selection, where animals can't reason properly so they need a "push" from "nature" so that they continue to evolve. A human is in the next step and at the end of it (social evolution, not natural selection) and we are approaching the next one. Of course, to go to it one step at a time, we have to be that way -- if we subdue to our pleasures we are halting our evolutionary journey.


Not only that your criteria are not really true in the case of humans (lots and lots of natural selection), but also you provide no reason whatsoever, why animals would be less capable of these things than humans. Excuse the obvious contradiction that humans are animals and are thus smarter than themselves (how true! Laughing ).

Quote:
Again my conception of evolution is far more broad and philosophical than just natural selection, I consider that only just one step among the more grand scheme. Razz


Evolution as a concept can stand for itself without your superior intellect. It applies to all and does not stop applying when you choose to ignore it, because another form of it seems more interesting at a particular point in time.

Many animals form social systems that affect their reproduction a lot like within a human society and have had them for millions of years, it influenced their natural evolution and in fact supported the formation of these social groups where they boosted their collective ability to survive.

You can't simply pull a line between humans and all the other animals (or life forms for that matter) because you think humans are special. They're not special. In fact, they are just as special as all the other species that do the same thing. And when they do it, we see certain mechanisms at work, and those same mechanisms very very likely apply to humans as well.

LP,
Jure
Post 27 Dec 2009, 21:01
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
DustWolf wrote:
Borsuc wrote:
When did I say humans are special because they're humans? Smile
They're special in the sense that they are the only ones who have gone to the next step in evolution


...
What's so hard to understand? Ok here's layman example. Humans are special because they have nukes. It doesn't mean they have a soul, does it? Or that they are not animals...?

yet they're the only ones with nukes...

DustWolf wrote:
Not only that your criteria are not really true in the case of humans (lots and lots of natural selection), but also you provide no reason whatsoever, why animals would be less capable of these things than humans. Excuse the obvious contradiction that humans are animals and are thus smarter than themselves (how true! Laughing ).
Animals ARE far less capable of rational thought, they mostly rely on feelings or instincts. Most of their social interaction is due to instinct, not reason. Most animals don't even have the notion of forward-thinking (although some do). They're just not as highly developped mentally, it doesn't mean we have a soul.

And obviously by animal I mean "non-human species".

DustWolf wrote:
Evolution as a concept can stand for itself without your superior intellect. It applies to all and does not stop applying when you choose to ignore it, because another form of it seems more interesting at a particular point in time.
It doesn't apply to lifeless planets. Likewise the next step in evolution doesn't apply to a species who goes backwards.

DustWolf wrote:
You can't simply pull a line between humans and all the other animals (or life forms for that matter) because you think humans are special. They're not special. In fact, they are just as special as all the other species that do the same thing. And when they do it, we see certain mechanisms at work, and those same mechanisms very very likely apply to humans as well.
I can easily draw a line, I don't think many people have problems finding whether a given creature is of human species or not, do you?

That's what I mean by animal -- non-human species.

And by the way, I only say humans are special in their reasoning capabilities, or rather UNIQUE on this planet (not "special", that sounds speciesist). I'm not a speciesist, and I actually think that respect has to be earned (by helping weaker species). Humans don't, they think they are ENTITLED to it, which is disgusting, no matter what they do to those below them. Gah. I hate humanity.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 27 Dec 2009, 21:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Borsuc wrote:
I can easily draw a line, I don't think many people have problems finding whether a given creature is of human species or not, do you?


And if I wanted to make the point that you are not being objective any more obvious, I probably couldn't.

Loose the implied superiority complex, if you want the truth.

EDIT: For a less abstract response, the problem with your vision is that you are equating "being like we are" with "being superior". It's a common fault, don't worry, but it's still wrong.

LP,
Jure
Post 27 Dec 2009, 21:35
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Well we could do DNA analysis to determine "humanness" if you want a more analytical approach Razz

And furthermore I have nothing with humans -- any creature capable of reason like us or even more, irrespective of its DNA (could even be a cyborg for all I care!), would receive the same response from me.

And yes I do think we are superior because of reasoning capacities, but also bastards. In fact we are more closely to tyrants than to superiority -- tyranny is when someone with superior power thinks is entitled to something just because of what it is, and that's exactly how most people think.

On the other hand I think we have to earn our superiority, by using it in such way. Using it for primitive (pleasure) and tyrannical things (abusing animals or things weaker than us) shows how less superior we are but more tyrannical Sad

you know, reason has two sides, a dark (backwards) side and a right side. The dark side is when you do something backwards on purpose. Most animals act on instinct, thus, they are pretty much neutral on the issue, no matter what they do. If, however, a human does a horrible act on purpose or when capable of ignoring such instinct, he is worse than neutral, backwards. It's the thought that matters.
Post 27 Dec 2009, 23:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.