|
On July 03 2013 21:59 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 03:52 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? With the exception of maybe communication, the rest are all arbitrary constructs. Whats to say they are better than love? More importantly, I think you have the chain of causality flipped around. Love, from a cynical(I would argue realistic, but thats me) perspective is an emergent behaviour, from the interactions of various other behaviours that arise as evolutionary adaptations to procreation, child rearing, group dynamics, and other behaviours associated with a social animals. We didn't arbitrarily invent love, we just gave an emergent behaviour(or a collection of emergent behaviours) an arbitrary name. I cant help but getting extremely annoyed by all of your posts. It is verry difficult for me to make sense of them. Annyway:if i understand you correctly then you say that love is an emergent property that comes from the evolutionary adaptation to proceration. Then what about love without the evolutionary aim to procerate? where does that love come from? There are manny examples of this: People love their car and their pets,people love god and poetry and art, people love their parents other family members and friends For some of these you could argue that love in this situation is more "liking", people like their car and not some other car, people like this piece of classical music but not the other piece. Still the love for family members and friends is verry real and more then simply "liking" it is verry simlar to the love you can feel for the person you aim to procerate with.
Your issue is that you assume humans are evolutionarily perfect, that each and every characteristic is responsible for a specific aspect its survival. Rather, it is that such characteristics are merely the least bad at preventing us from dying out, that they are characteristics that persist by chance of being associated with other characteristics that improve our chances for survival.
|
On July 02 2013 08:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Even if they were all fictional--believers of a religion see them as historical fact and true witnessing of events. The opposite of arbitrary constructs.
For it to be an arbitrary construct it has to be made up from scratch.
My friend, I think you misunderstand the nature of an arbitrary construct. For an idea to be an arbitrary construct, then in its original conception it must be arbitrary. For example, with religion, I think what people are trying to say is that the originator of the religions made up their concepts on a personal whim, and therefore the concepts themselves are arbitrary constructs. The idea, which is then perpetuated in terms of belief by other people, will always remain, therefore, an arbitrary construct, as it was constructed arbitrarily!
I apologise for all the tautology in there, but I felt it was slightly necessary.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 03 2013 21:59 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 03:52 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? With the exception of maybe communication, the rest are all arbitrary constructs. Whats to say they are better than love? More importantly, I think you have the chain of causality flipped around. Love, from a cynical(I would argue realistic, but thats me) perspective is an emergent behaviour, from the interactions of various other behaviours that arise as evolutionary adaptations to procreation, child rearing, group dynamics, and other behaviours associated with a social animals. We didn't arbitrarily invent love, we just gave an emergent behaviour(or a collection of emergent behaviours) an arbitrary name. If i understand you correctly then you say that love is an emergent property that comes from the evolutionary adaptation to proceration. Then what about love without the evolutionary aim to procerate? where does that love come from? There are manny examples of this: People love their car and their pets,people love god and poetry and art, people love their parents other family members and friends For some of these you could argue that love in this situation is more "liking", people like their car and not some other car, people like this piece of classical music but not the other piece. Still the love for family members and friends is verry real and more then simply "liking" it is verry simlar to the love you can feel for the person you aim to procerate with.
I actually meant that list an inclusive sort of behaviours that are associated with love. They don't all necessarily apply in all situations, and love applies to situations that may not be in the list.
Ultimately, love is poorly defined as a whole, in English it is a coverall sort of word for a whole umbrella of generally positive emotions towards other people (or things or ideas), in other languages the distinction between lust, romantic love, platonic love, familial love is often made.
The thing with the concept of love is that there isn't a clear consensus across different cultures on what is and isn't love. While there are obvious similarities and common themes that appear fairly commonly, they are not in perfect agreement.
If we take the relatively modern, chemically/hormonally dominant explanation than there are 3 main groups:
Lust/physical attraction/sexual attraction
Mediated primarily by testosterone and estrogen
Romantic love/infatuation/short term attachment
Mediated primarily by seratonin, nerve growth factor and dopamine
Pair bonding/familial love/long term attachment
Mediated primarily by oxytocin and vasopressin
Those and their combinatorials probably don't cover every type of love covered by the word, but they do a pretty decent job in getting most of the possibilities, and give them at least some empirical basis.
So the theory is that 'love' is actually some combination of those 3 above, obviously some of these are not applicable to some definitions of love, eg sexual attraction is probably not going to be a major factor in parent/child/sibling expressions of love (one would hope).
You can clearly see how each of these and all of them as a whole would play an important evolutionary role in the survival and propagation of organisms, it doesn't mean each is applicable to all forms of love, just that there is a common theme to the nature of their existence in humans.
Specifically, while not all love necessarily has to do with mating, it does as a general rule relate to either increased chance of procreation or the increased chance of survival of partners/offspring/kin.
|
On July 03 2013 22:28 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 21:59 Rassy wrote:On July 03 2013 03:52 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? With the exception of maybe communication, the rest are all arbitrary constructs. Whats to say they are better than love? More importantly, I think you have the chain of causality flipped around. Love, from a cynical(I would argue realistic, but thats me) perspective is an emergent behaviour, from the interactions of various other behaviours that arise as evolutionary adaptations to procreation, child rearing, group dynamics, and other behaviours associated with a social animals. We didn't arbitrarily invent love, we just gave an emergent behaviour(or a collection of emergent behaviours) an arbitrary name. I cant help but getting extremely annoyed by all of your posts. It is verry difficult for me to make sense of them. Annyway:if i understand you correctly then you say that love is an emergent property that comes from the evolutionary adaptation to proceration. Then what about love without the evolutionary aim to procerate? where does that love come from? There are manny examples of this: People love their car and their pets,people love god and poetry and art, people love their parents other family members and friends For some of these you could argue that love in this situation is more "liking", people like their car and not some other car, people like this piece of classical music but not the other piece. Still the love for family members and friends is verry real and more then simply "liking" it is verry simlar to the love you can feel for the person you aim to procerate with. Your issue is that you assume humans are evolutionarily perfect, that each and every characteristic is responsible for a specific aspect its survival. Rather, it is that such characteristics are merely the least bad at preventing us from dying out, that they are characteristics that persist by chance of being associated with other characteristics that improve our chances for survival.
It is also possible to see it as territory or something like this.
Wolves protect and love each-other but also their territory. They protect their own things.
We can assume that our liking for our hobbies, family, friends etc... comes from that.
We make these hobbies part of our-self by discovering them and practicing them and then when someone criticize it we get upset. The same goes when someone takes something that we think is ours. Yes it's all part of evolution too.
|
On July 03 2013 21:59 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 03:52 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? With the exception of maybe communication, the rest are all arbitrary constructs. Whats to say they are better than love? More importantly, I think you have the chain of causality flipped around. Love, from a cynical(I would argue realistic, but thats me) perspective is an emergent behaviour, from the interactions of various other behaviours that arise as evolutionary adaptations to procreation, child rearing, group dynamics, and other behaviours associated with a social animals. We didn't arbitrarily invent love, we just gave an emergent behaviour(or a collection of emergent behaviours) an arbitrary name. If i understand you correctly then you say that love is an emergent property that comes from the evolutionary adaptation to proceration. Then what about love without the evolutionary aim to procerate? where does that love come from? There are manny examples of this: People love their car and their pets,people love god and poetry and art, people love their parents other family members and friends For some of these you could argue that love in this situation is more "liking", people like their car and not some other car, people like this piece of classical music but not the other piece. Still the love for family members and friends is verry real and more then simply "liking" it is verry simlar to the love you can feel for the person you aim to procerate with.
Your objection is showing misunderstanding of evolution. Why do we find small animal cute, because evolutionary solutions are in a way efficient also in regards to cost. It is much easier to "design" a system that considers all young animals cute than system that considers only young human animals cute. And if the simpler systems works well enough, it is ok. The same way goes for love.
Some kinds non-procreation love are also evolutionarily beneficial, like love for your parents, members of community. But some are just hijacks of imperfect system. Like love of a country.
Evolution does not fix problems if the fix would be more expensive than the problem.
|
It's not that love is a human construct, it's a human emotion we labeled with a word. The attachment to a mate or person or a group has deep evolutionary roots, we are social animals. When you love a person and it's taken from you or in danger you will go through a great deal of emotional turmoil. If your mate or group is in danger, those powerful emotions motivate action.
We are capable of abstract thinking and become attached to objects as well as people. I love my computer, and if it was to break or be taken away from me it would be an emotional ordeal for me. The severity of emotions is related to how attached you are to the person or object in question.
We didn't design or create love. We simply put a label on an experience that people have. That feeling is based on evolved psychology. To denounce love is to denounce, in a way, your humanity. To have mating as a mere transaction it would depersonalize it and take away from its value. It's unnatural to force a change in these things.
Religion is also a very human trait. We revere and worship things greater than ourselves. Whether you pray to a deity or worship the sun its very natural. It's natural to feel very pleased towards the sun on a warm day after it's been raining or to hate the sun on a hot day, just like people of religion praise god or get angry with their god.
I think it is not the feeling or idea that is the problem, it's what you do with it. If you are depressed or hurt yourself because of love it is an issue. If you kill or hate others in the name of your religion it's a problem.
I think we should focus on how we deal with these things rather than deny them. Encouraging healthy management of the feelings of love or loss of love are more important than removing it. Same goes for religions, respect older generations beliefs but take them with a grain of salt. There is a lot of history surrounding religion and it's never a good idea forget things or burn books.
|
On July 04 2013 00:50 mcc wrote:
But some are just hijacks of imperfect system. Like love of a country.
Don't you think our tendency towards (admittedly disgusting) nationalism probably had a highly beneficial evolutionary role? By-product of in-group protection, etc.?
|
On July 04 2013 11:36 IPA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 00:50 mcc wrote:
But some are just hijacks of imperfect system. Like love of a country.
Don't you think our tendency towards (admittedly disgusting) nationalism probably had a highly beneficial evolutionary role? By-product of in-group protection, etc.?
Of course the root is evolutionary beneficial, love for the community, but love for the country is a hijack. I used hijack instead of by product as it is not "natural" byproduct, it was somewhat intentionally co-opted by nationalism. I hope I am somewhat clear 
|
People like to fill their life with meaning and both religion and love are what Dawkins calls memes. Ideas that have been transferred from generation to generation.
|
On July 05 2013 06:31 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 11:36 IPA wrote:On July 04 2013 00:50 mcc wrote:
But some are just hijacks of imperfect system. Like love of a country.
Don't you think our tendency towards (admittedly disgusting) nationalism probably had a highly beneficial evolutionary role? By-product of in-group protection, etc.? Of course the root is evolutionary beneficial, love for the community, but love for the country is a hijack. I used hijack instead of by product as it is not "natural" byproduct, it was somewhat intentionally co-opted by nationalism. I hope I am somewhat clear
I don't think there is any difference between a pack mentality amongst wolves and the pack mentality of patriots. I doubt wolves create the arbitrary construct of a pack mentality no more than ants create the arbitrary construct of a hive mentality.
|
On July 03 2013 22:41 GenghisKhan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Even if they were all fictional--believers of a religion see them as historical fact and true witnessing of events. The opposite of arbitrary constructs.
For it to be an arbitrary construct it has to be made up from scratch. My friend, I think you misunderstand the nature of an arbitrary construct. For an idea to be an arbitrary construct, then in its original conception it must be arbitrary. For example, with religion, I think what people are trying to say is that the originator of the religions made up their concepts on a personal whim, and therefore the concepts themselves are arbitrary constructs. The idea, which is then perpetuated in terms of belief by other people, will always remain, therefore, an arbitrary construct, as it was constructed arbitrarily! I apologise for all the tautology in there, but I felt it was slightly necessary.
But its never treated in an arbitrary way.
Science, for example, changes all the time as new information arises. But we don't call outdated results "arbitrary constructs" just because it turned out we were wrong. We say the evidence was either insufficient or not yet present at the time. When paleontologist mixed up dinasaur bones initially--we don't call their original skeletons arbitrary constructs no more than we call featherless dinasaurs arbitrary constructs.
People having bad evidence does not make their conclusions arbitrary; especially when their conclusions hinges on the supposedly true witnessing a of real events.
Arbitrary would be "I believe in X because _______ says I should" which is not what religion is at all. Religion is "X was observed by Y, and it was documented by Z." Which is the opposite of arbitrary.
The reason you can't just make up a religion today is because most other religions hinge on the premise of witnessing events/miracles. Unless you have the "witness" you don't have the religion and today's rigors are much more strict than the past's rigors. Which is why most of the older religions gets a lot of support because their witness can't be falsified. We can't actually say that we know for a fact that there was no Abraham. We can't say for a fact that Mohammed didn't talk to God. You and I might feel that the evidence is insufficient--but sufficiency of evidence is a personal preference.
|
On July 05 2013 21:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 22:41 GenghisKhan wrote:On July 02 2013 08:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Even if they were all fictional--believers of a religion see them as historical fact and true witnessing of events. The opposite of arbitrary constructs.
For it to be an arbitrary construct it has to be made up from scratch. My friend, I think you misunderstand the nature of an arbitrary construct. For an idea to be an arbitrary construct, then in its original conception it must be arbitrary. For example, with religion, I think what people are trying to say is that the originator of the religions made up their concepts on a personal whim, and therefore the concepts themselves are arbitrary constructs. The idea, which is then perpetuated in terms of belief by other people, will always remain, therefore, an arbitrary construct, as it was constructed arbitrarily! I apologise for all the tautology in there, but I felt it was slightly necessary. But its never treated in an arbitrary way. Science, for example, changes all the time as new information arises. But we don't call outdated results "arbitrary constructs" just because it turned out we were wrong. We say the evidence was either insufficient or not yet present at the time. When paleontologist mixed up dinasaur bones initially--we don't call their original skeletons arbitrary constructs no more than we call featherless dinasaurs arbitrary constructs. People having bad evidence does not make their conclusions arbitrary; especially when their conclusions hinges on the supposedly true witnessing a of real events. Arbitrary would be "I believe in X because _______ says I should" which is not what religion is at all. Religion is "X was observed by Y, and it was documented by Z." Which is the opposite of arbitrary. The reason you can't just make up a religion today is because most other religions hinge on the premise of witnessing events/miracles. Unless you have the "witness" you don't have the religion and today's rigors are much more strict than the past's rigors. Which is why most of the older religions gets a lot of support because their witness can't be falsified. We can't actually say that we know for a fact that there was no Abraham. We can't say for a fact that Mohammed didn't talk to God. You and I might feel that the evidence is insufficient--but sufficiency of evidence is a personal preference.
I think you make good points, but I will correct your last point. It is in fact quite easy to make up a religion, especially in more developed countries. There are new evangelical Christian branches formed all the time. Even atheists usually hail their own growth in numbers and have expanded to include their own Sunday school.
But if you're talking about a new religion that displaces and eliminates the incumbent religions, that's a taller order. It's unlikely to happen in a modern country with a vibrant freedom of religion because there's no acceptable way to wipe out the others. It's unlikely to happen in a traditional country with a single religion or a hodgepodge of traditionalist religions because the world is much smaller and we're far more fearful of religions based on conquest after the experiences with fascism and communism.
|
On July 04 2013 11:36 IPA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 00:50 mcc wrote:
But some are just hijacks of imperfect system. Like love of a country.
Don't you think our tendency towards (admittedly disgusting) nationalism probably had a highly beneficial evolutionary role? By-product of in-group protection, etc.?
Look how many genocides this "in-group protection" caused in human history. How is that beneficial in any way to any party involved?
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 06 2013 00:00 acidfreak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 11:36 IPA wrote:On July 04 2013 00:50 mcc wrote:
But some are just hijacks of imperfect system. Like love of a country.
Don't you think our tendency towards (admittedly disgusting) nationalism probably had a highly beneficial evolutionary role? By-product of in-group protection, etc.? Look how many genocides this "in-group protection" caused in human history. How is that beneficial in any way to any party involved?
People are not perfectly co-operative agents, so genocide eliminates competition for limited resources and prevents or destroys the competition's power of extending their influence over you and said resources. The same way big cats often kill the young of other species of big cats.
Genocide may be offensive to our morals and sensibilities, but I think it's pretty easy to see how certain parties benefit from it. Humanity as a whole might suffer as a result of genocide, but almost certainly parts of humanity would benefit.
edit: great, you know you need to reconsider your life choices when you just spent your 1000th post espousing the benefits of genocide  .
|
On July 05 2013 06:31 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 11:36 IPA wrote:On July 04 2013 00:50 mcc wrote:
But some are just hijacks of imperfect system. Like love of a country.
Don't you think our tendency towards (admittedly disgusting) nationalism probably had a highly beneficial evolutionary role? By-product of in-group protection, etc.? Of course the root is evolutionary beneficial, love for the community, but love for the country is a hijack. I used hijack instead of by product as it is not "natural" byproduct, it was somewhat intentionally co-opted by nationalism. I hope I am somewhat clear
anybody else notice the strange increase in amount of people using the word "co-opt" lately?
|
On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs?
You can't reject that which makes you what you are. It's not ARBITRARY because it's HUMAN. There is a ridiculous modern notion that we are somehow beyond evolution, that we are not in constant competition, that we are 'fair' or led by reason. Utter bullshit. We spend our entire lives competing for mates and securing safe positive lifestyles for our families. Sorry but humans cannot be not human.
|
On July 02 2013 10:37 Excludos wrote:
Many of the smartest and greatest people in history was uninterested in love. I fully believe there is something there.
Love is a biological way for humans to reproduce and take care of their family. It's still impossible for most of us to resist, even if we know this fact. Its firmly rooted into our brains.
And many of the greatest and most brilliant people were soaked in the idea of love.
Love is something 99.99% of humans experience towards someone and yes I made that up it's probably true anyway or close. It is deeply rooted in human nature. Love and passion beyond sex and outside of a sexual context entirely is one of the things that separates man from the animals.
Classifying it as just some subjective experience that a few people can transcend in some kind of way is treating love too lightly. After food and shelter is taken care of, love is what makes humans human. Love for family, for friends, for the land we live on, curiosity - a form of love - and all the things done for it. Love directly or indirectly governs the large majority of human behavior. If it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be talking about humans, we'd be talking about the Illimunati Reptiloids.
So what if love is wired into our brains. Transcending biology may be a fun thought experiment but it has no application besides amusement.
|
On July 06 2013 15:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 10:37 Excludos wrote:
Many of the smartest and greatest people in history was uninterested in love. I fully believe there is something there.
Love is a biological way for humans to reproduce and take care of their family. It's still impossible for most of us to resist, even if we know this fact. Its firmly rooted into our brains. And many of the greatest and most brilliant people were soaked in the idea of love. Love is something 99.99% of humans experience towards someone and yes I made that up it's probably true anyway or close. It is deeply rooted in human nature. Love and passion beyond sex and outside of a sexual context entirely is one of the things that separates man from the animals. Classifying it as just some subjective experience that a few people can transcend in some kind of way is treating love too lightly. After food and shelter is taken care of, love is what makes humans human. Love for family, for friends, for the land we live on, curiosity - a form of love - and all the things done for it. Love directly or indirectly governs the large majority of human behavior. If it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be talking about humans, we'd be talking about the Illimunati Reptiloids. So what if love is wired into our brains. Transcending biology may be a fun thought experiment but it has no application besides amusement.
Um, evolution?
|
On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs?
I don't think you can directly associate the institution of religion with its presence or value as a "abstract construct" you compare the institutions of religion with the concept of love, and I think it would be better compared to the concept of religion or the institute of love. The concept of religion is a lot more complex than the institutions, and less prone to abuse. Marriage is probably the closest thing to an institute of love and it is receiving a fair amount of flac to be fair.
|
On July 06 2013 15:36 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 15:35 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 10:37 Excludos wrote:
Many of the smartest and greatest people in history was uninterested in love. I fully believe there is something there.
Love is a biological way for humans to reproduce and take care of their family. It's still impossible for most of us to resist, even if we know this fact. Its firmly rooted into our brains. And many of the greatest and most brilliant people were soaked in the idea of love. Love is something 99.99% of humans experience towards someone and yes I made that up it's probably true anyway or close. It is deeply rooted in human nature. Love and passion beyond sex and outside of a sexual context entirely is one of the things that separates man from the animals. Classifying it as just some subjective experience that a few people can transcend in some kind of way is treating love too lightly. After food and shelter is taken care of, love is what makes humans human. Love for family, for friends, for the land we live on, curiosity - a form of love - and all the things done for it. Love directly or indirectly governs the large majority of human behavior. If it wasn't that way, we wouldn't be talking about humans, we'd be talking about the Illimunati Reptiloids. So what if love is wired into our brains. Transcending biology may be a fun thought experiment but it has no application besides amusement. Um, evolution?
I'm not down with the singularity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
