Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum
|Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.
Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.
If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.
Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Posted 31 August 2010 - 01:09 AM
Posted 31 August 2010 - 01:12 AM
*takes Phaze out of context* Them drugs make you kill people, aye boy? Off to the asylum with you..
I didn't kill Izzy the chemicals made me do it
Nick, chemicals control the impulses as well. YOU are YOUR chemicals, so it's still YOU making the decisions, just not in the way you think..
Eugh, we're venturing into free will again..
Edited by Izzy, 31 August 2010 - 01:12 AM.
Posted 31 August 2010 - 01:26 AM
Eugh, we're venturing into free will again..
Muhahahahahhahaha (sorry, I had to do that, chemical imbalance)
Posted 02 September 2010 - 04:53 PM
Depends on where you think the force would be coming from. I thought this just about summed up the whole topic of free will:
Its still a human nature thing, thought processes, you're not forced to do it, its YOU.
I was reading a book of Richard Feynman's reminiscences and he described being hypnotised for the first time. At some point the hypnotist says to him "You are now unable to open your eyes". Feynman's sitting there thinking "Yeah right, I bet I could open my eyes if I wanted". Trouble is, he's really interested in hypnosis and wants to find out what happens next. He knows if he opens his eyes the jig is up and he won't get to play anymore, so he keeps his eyes closed and plays along. With hindsight he notes that the hypnotist is correct in saying that he cannot open his eyes. The thing stopping him from doing so is curiosity. It turns out he was quite a good subject for hypnosis, which surprised me.
Anyhow, can't resist picking up on...
If love (or male monogamy at least) were not an evolved characteristic, what is it? And if it were evolved, it's pretty unlikely that it would be "evolutionarily stupid". I agree that spreading your seed around is much more advantageous for males than females, but there must be a flip side otherwise males would be doing it universally (rather than just a lot of the time). In my opinion, monogamy is a partial characteristic of human males because of the enormous investment that we make in our children, and the great difference that this can make to the success of those children (which in our evolutionary past may well equate to their survival prospects). If protection, education, and resources from a male parent is going to make the difference between life and death, it is in the genetic interests of the father to put in the effort. That's a lot easier and less stressful if those children all happen to have the same mother.
Some animals mate for life, and this is evolutionarily stupid for the males, considering it downs there chances of reproductive success. Ergo, love!
Counterargument: Ah yes, but if you can manage all of the above and also get a few other women pregnant on the side (even if you don't have time to raise their children), so much the better. Why not? All it costs is a few sperm.
In practice this is made difficult, because generally women don't want to be single mothers, and a man doesn't want to raise the kids of some philanderer in the mistaken belief that they are his. So women look for commitment in a man, and men are always on the lookout to avoid cuckoldry. An "attached" woman has little incentive to be unfaithful, because if she is found out, she may be abandoned. I disagree with Quag that there is a significant advantage to the woman in having genetic "diversification" in her children, it's only relevant if the man was a poor genetic match in the first place, and a lot of the chemical signals that we pick up on in courtship are a way of finding compatible partners. Courtship is generally a considerable investment of time and effort for both partners (it is in the woman's interest to ensure that this is observed since she does not want to bear the children of a poor genetic match, plus a male who puts in the courtship hours is a better bet in terms of commitment). So a male philanderer has to observe the courtship rituals without getting found out and getting his head kicked in, while seeking out women who will either take the risk of cheating on their partners or settle for (or be sweet-talked into) a relationship with no commitment (neither of which is in their genetic interests). Nevertheless, if despite all these difficulties, a man can still manage to put it about, the chances are he will.
So there you go, more aspects of love than you can shake a stick at, all genetically optimal. The key in this case is the advantage of a large paternal investment in raising children. Intensive long-term parental care is more important for humans than probably any other animal. There are cases of monogamy elsewhere in the animal kingdom, but they are a minority and in many of these cases a bit of infidelity tends to occur as well. I would suggest that in most of these cases there will be some key resource, such as a nest, which the male must provide for his young. Male investment makes it advantageous to create monogamous partnerships. Hence love, roses, chick flicks, wedding rings, and all that jazz.
Posted 19 September 2010 - 09:11 PM
in the case of some animals love more than humans
animals like dogs truly love you no matter what
my question is why do people say they they love more than animals if we kill each other in mass numbers (bombing of Hiroshima)
Posted 04 October 2010 - 03:34 PM
Getting this out of the way: I haven't been in "love" before, but I have had crushes as everyone does...hey, I'm 14!!!
I believe that "love at first site" and such is chemical impulses. But as time goes on, and you grow attached and you get to know the other person, that is "Love." Once you are with the other person for an extended amount of time, or you get have everything in common, or it just...FITS, that moves beyond the impulses and chemicals. chemicals are still creating the "love" but it goes beyond that at the same time. its not just "lust" or anything like that anymore...you genually love the person...
just my thoughts...
Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:37 PM
its in multiple parts, but i saw it, and IMMEDIATLY thought of this discussion
Posted 05 November 2010 - 08:52 PM
Interesting thoughts about love, especially the part where some think it's totally chemical while others say it has a part where "you" decide...
What happens with couples that trigger that chemical reaction right away (call it love at first sight if you want) and get together in months.... A year later... Split... Did the chemical reaction just stop ocurring? Whose fault is it that the chemical reaction stopped? Did the girl stop emiting the same chemicals that triggered the male or viceversa? If this is "completely" chemical, there should be a way to "stay in love" for eternity, right?
Just something we can keep talking *cough arguing cough* about...
Posted 05 November 2010 - 10:06 PM
So two people who've dated a lot always wearing their best face (and odors) seem compatible, but in reality they might have clashing pheromones that are getting covered up. So when they finally move in together and spend time in each other's company without any of the various cover ups, suddenly the attraction is dulled or even reversed.
My philosophy teacher in high school commented that to really get to know someone, you shouldn't be focusing on how they are on a Friday night date, but how they would be on a Saturday morning. That sounds PG-13ish, but that's not how he meant it. His point was that when you go out on a date (or really when you do anything in public) most people put up a facade. And if people fall in love with each other's facades, they may be in for a rude awakening when they meet the real person.
The real person is revealed by the Saturday morning person. How would you be at 9:00am on a Saturday morning if you had made absolutely no plans for the day? How many people would be up, bright-eyed and dressed to the nines at that time? What he was saying is that it's far more important to know what the person really is like underneath (how they would behave on a lazy Saturday morning) than how they present themselves on a Friday night date. So that's a couple of reasons for break-ups and the like.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users