A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Initial lust is powerful but fleeting, like a drug high (in fact it activates the same brain areas as cocaine). In healthy, normal people sex drive waxes and wanes with hormonal fluctuations and overall health and contentment. Love is deeper can endure the sexual hills, valleys, and flat spots because there is something other than sex bonding the couple together.

Scientists then wondered: Does a brain in love look much like a sexually stimulated brain? After all, we associate love and sex and sometimes confuse them.

The answer is: Brains in love and brains in lust don't look too much alike.

In studies when researchers showed erotic photos to people as they underwent brain scans, they found activity in the hypothalamus and amygdala areas of the brain. The hypothalamus controls drives like hunger and thirst and the amygdala handles arousal, among other things.

In the studies of people in love, "we didn't find activity in either," according to Dr. Fisher, an anthropologist and author of "Why We Love -- the Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love."

"We now have physiological data that suggests there are different brain systems for sex and love," says Dr. Fisher.

At some point, the two do become linked. People in love have elevated levels of dopamine. Lots of dopamine, in turn, triggers the production of testosterone, which is responsible for the sex drive in both men and women. Loving with all your ... brain - CNN.com

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, in the new world there will be virtually no accidents so the injuries from this source will be no longer. If someone gets ill, a person can leave if he wants to, but in the new world he won't want to. How could he leave a woman who does nothing but love him in every way. It would be the same thing as him leaving her for another woman knowing she would never blame him for this, even if she caught him in the act. His conscience wouldn't let him. If this type of situation occurred (which would be less and less probable once stress is out of the picture and there are no more iatrogenic injuries), they would need to find a solution if one of them still has strong sexual desires, but they would not desire to leave each other. Remember, love grows after marriage and the bond they have developed would never be broken for this reason.

That is a lot to extrapolate from nothing, which is how much evidence Lessans offers to support this scenario. There is no actual evidence to indicate that any of this is true, and claiming "changed conditions" offers nothing of substance to base it on.

[Vivisectus]

And there will be puppies and ice-cream for everyone, because how could anyone justify not letting puppies and ice-cream be there even though they know no-one would blame them if they didn't? Also, teenagers in skimpy clothing!

Also, there will be no icky broccoli. People just would not be able to justify inflicting icky broccoli on anyone, even though they know no-one would blame them if they didn't.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything. I already told you that you have to understand why words have caused such damage in relationships, and why people are often held on a string just in case someone more valuable (more pretty or more intelligent or more cultured or have more money) comes along. When the words beautiful and ugly are removed, and no one criticizes someone's choice, then the overriding factor in finding someone (whom they may not have been able to find in the past due to not having the attributes that society deems so important) will not be a priority. What will be a priority when everyone stops criticizing a person's choice in a mate, is whether they can offer a sexual relationship (because they have the organs in which to fulfill this natural desire) which, in the new world, will cause the two people to fall more and more in love after they are married (after they consummate their love in a sexual relation), not before. It's the complete opposite of what occurs today.

Words are just labels for the concepts people have in their minds. Just removing the words/labels will not remove the concepts. a young man will still look at a girl and think "I don't like the way she looks" and reject her, even if she likes his looks, he will still reject her because of the way she looks. You and Lessans really have no understanding of how the human thought process works.

[LadyShea]

I think Lessans was really insecure and felt like he wasn't valued enough and didn't get enough sex. His New World is his own fantasy ideal...his own Utopia.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think Lessans was really insecure and felt like he wasn't valued enough and didn't get enough sex. His New World is his own fantasy ideal...his own Utopia.

I know you are having a hard time, so when all else fails you revert back to this having to do with Lessans personally, which is laughable. For someone who is into science, you have failed because your mind is closed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And there will be puppies and ice-cream for everyone, because how could anyone justify not letting puppies and ice-cream be there even though they know no-one would blame them if they didn't? Also, teenagers in skimpy clothing!

Also, there will be no icky broccoli. People just would not be able to justify inflicting icky broccoli on anyone, even though they know no-one would blame them if they didn't.

We are talking about hurt, nothing more. You don't understand this concept just like you didn't understand the right-of-way system. Anyone can make fun of something they don't understand. You are making yourself look more and more ridiculous Vivisectus. Really truly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not going to win here, you know why? Because Lessans was not wrong.

V. - was too.
P. - was not.
V. - was too.
P. - was not.
V. - was too.
P. - was not.
V. - was too.
Etc. etc. etc. . . . . .

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Kyuss Apollo

This Lessans person is . . .

Was. Dudebro's been worm food since 1991. He would have remained just another anonymous poon-obsessed aluminum siding salesman but for peacegirl's decision to turn him into an Internet laughingstock posthumously.

Originally Posted by Kyuss Apollo

. . . fucking retarded. Socially and emotionally retarded.

Also breathtakingly stupid and blissfully ignorant of his condition.

[peacegirl]

added to previous post:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And there will be puppies and ice-cream for everyone, because how could anyone justify not letting puppies and ice-cream be there even though they know no-one would blame them if they didn't? Also, teenagers in skimpy clothing!

Also, there will be no icky broccoli. People just would not be able to justify inflicting icky broccoli on anyone, even though they know no-one would blame them if they didn't.

If you want to turn this book into a joke, the joke will be on you because you are making fun of a universal law. All Lessans did was observe this law and show how it can be applied on a global basis. This law actually has the power to prevent war and crime where our children will no longer have to sacrifice their lives for their country. Think about that while you're laughing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to turn this book into a joke, the joke will be on you because you are making fun of a universal law. All Lessans did was observe this law and show how it can be applied on a global basis. This law actually has the power to prevent war and crime where our children will no longer have to sacrifice their lives for their country. Think about that while you're laughing.

Thinking about that is what provokes the laughter to start with.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are talking about hurt, nothing more. You don't understand this concept just like you didn't understand the right-of-way system. Anyone can make fun of something they don't understand. You are making yourself look more and more ridiculous Vivisectus. Really truly.

It's Ok peacegirl. I know you are just blaming the shortcomings of the book on me because the Changed Conditions are not here yet. In the Brave New World you would never do that because you just would not be able to justify it to yourself.

[Stephen Maturin]

Still, you've gotta love a "universal law" that can't manifest itself because a false belief completely cancels out what would otherwise be its spectacularly beneficial effects.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Still, you've gotta love a "universal law" that can't manifest itself because a false belief completely cancels out what would otherwise be its spectacularly beneficial effects.

Universal laws don't get cancelled out Stephen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Still, you've gotta love a "universal law" that can't manifest itself because a false belief completely cancels out what would otherwise be its spectacularly beneficial effects.

Yes, It's odd that a 'Universal Law of Nature' can't manifest itself till everyone accepts it and believes it? It seems to me that someone (Peacegirl) doesn't quite understand what a 'Universal Law' really is. That part isn't odd because Peacegirl has demonstrated that she doesn't understand a lot of things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It's Ok peacegirl. I know you are just blaming the shortcomings of the book on me because the Changed Conditions are not here yet. In the Brave New World you would never do that because you just would not be able to justify it to yourself.

Your making light of this discovery because you think he is wrong justifies your sarcasm. I am responding in a retaliatory manner, which is also justified because I believe he was right and will continue to defend him against these hurtful attacks. Anyone in my shoes would react the same way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Universal laws don't get cancelled out Stephen.

That must be it, the Law is hiding behind a locked door, and only Peacegirl has the key, or is it the sword that will slay the 'Fiery Dragon'?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Universal laws don't get cancelled out Stephen.

I'd ask you to think that through a bit, but you're simply not up to the task.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right now the incentive to stay away is not as great as my desire to stay even with the frustration because I want people to grasp these principles and I'm not talking to any other group right now. An added benefit is that it is helping me to understand and respond to the refutations that will come up in the future. I have become much more proficient at this thanks to this group.

Actually, you haven't. You are as bad at responding to critical comments as you were the first day you posted here. You just think you have gotten better at it. Just another one of your delusions.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Wow! I can hardly wait for Lessans book to go viral.

I sure hope they come up with a vaccine for it if that does happen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is your definition of "unrequited love" then, and how is it eliminated in the new world? After all, it's possible for someone to develop feelings of love for another, without having sex with them, and not have those feelings returned. You act as if without sex there can be no deep feelings that are one sided.

So true. I can't even count the number of times I have suffered from unrequited love without even getting to first base. That pretty much describes all three years of Jr. High and a significant percentage of High School as well.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Universal laws don't get cancelled out Stephen.

And it is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone except the terminally concussed that that is exactly Maturins point. But it seems that this particular universal law is far from robust: it shrivels up at the merest hint of criticism, it withers in the presence of nay-sayers, it wilts like a hot-house flower in a cold February wind when exposed to skepticism and seems to require a whole set of special circumstances in order to even be detectable.

In fact, this universal, mathematical law is so ethereal, so very very fragile that it can only come out if everybody present already believes in it. When even a few people do not believe it, it seems, it stays completely undetectable.

Where normal theories are born out by observations of reality, this one is different: it requires reality to be altered first, and then we will all see how true it is. First everyone needs to agree with the book about free will and conscience and act accordingly: only then, in the Changed Conditions, will any evidence materialize. Until then, all we have to go on is the claims in the book.

It is a part of the wonderful circular thinking that permeates the book. In order to see that it is correct, everyone first needs to agree that it IS correct and act accordingly. Once the Brave New World is underway, we will actually get some evidence that it works as it claims it does... in the mean time, we will just have to take the books word for it. It does not offer any reason to believe that conscience works as it says it does: it makes a strong claim THAT it does, and encourages people to imagine that they feel like it does, but that is all I can find.

You have claimed in the past that by explaining what he believes, your father also demonstrated that it works that way, but in order to call something a demonstration in that fashion, some logical evidence needs to be present: it must be shown that something must logically be that way. But nothing of the kind is proffered in the book: you yourself have been unable to find it.

Strange that it never occurred to this visionary genius, this adept observer of human behavior and the sagacious inventor of the translucent robe and sexy jacket to provide people with a reason his book is correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And it is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone except the terminally concussed that that is exactly Maturins point. But it seems that this particular universal law is far from robust: it shrivels up at the merest hint of criticism, it withers in the presence of nay-sayers, it wilts like a hot-house flower in a cold February wind when exposed to skepticism and seems to require a whole set of special circumstances in order to even be detectable.

In fact, this universal, mathematical law is so ethereal, so very very fragile that it can only come out if everybody present already believes in it. When even a few people do not believe it, it seems, it stays completely undetectable.

Where normal theories are born out by observations of reality, this one is different: it requires reality to be altered first, and then we will all see how true it is. First everyone needs to agree with the book about free will and conscience and act accordingly: only then, in the Changed Conditions, will any evidence materialize. Until then, all we have to go on is the claims in the book.

It is a part of the wonderful circular thinking that permeates the book. In order to see that it is correct, everyone first needs to agree that it IS correct and act accordingly. Once the Brave New World is underway, we will actually get some evidence that it works as it claims it does... in the mean time, we will just have to take the books word for it. It does not offer any reason to believe that conscience works as it says it does: it makes a strong claim THAT it does, and encourages people to imagine that they feel like it does, but that is all I can find.

You have claimed in the past that by explaining what he believes, your father also demonstrated that it works that way, but in order to call something a demonstration in that fashion, some logical evidence needs to be present: it must be shown that something must logically be that way. But nothing of the kind is proffered in the book: you yourself have been unable to find it.

Strange that it never occurred to this visionary genius, this adept observer of human behavior and the sagacious inventor of the translucent robe and sexy jacket to provide people with a reason his book is correct.

It's funny how you default into your little harangue about the book not demonstrating anything. The knowledge is much more than anything logic can tell us, which can be unsound. His findings come from astute observation, but you are ignoring them so that you don't have to deal with the fact that he could be right. It's a very easy thing to do. Then it's a skip and a hop to make fun of him and put the blame for your disapproval of what his claims tell us, on his lack of integrity. Do you see how unfair that is? No you won't. That's why you keep putting him in the category of a flat earther. If he's that, then you can justify saying anything you want about him even if it's 100% wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, you haven't. You are as bad at responding to critical comments as you were the first day you posted here. You just think you have gotten better at it. Just another one of your delusions.

No Angakuk. I actually have gotten better but you are so convinced that he is wrong, you're just as bad as the rest. You even have taken on the phrases that other people use. You're just a copycat with no questions of your own. This has turned into a witch hunt, finding anything to attack me with because you're convinced he was wrong. We don't have free will Angakuk, in spite of what religion tells us. Sorry if that offends you.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Wow! I can hardly wait for Lessans book to go viral.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I sure hope they come up with a vaccine for it if that does happen.

How sad to say something like this. The ignorance is astounding.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is your definition of "unrequited love" then, and how is it eliminated in the new world? After all, it's possible for someone to develop feelings of love for another, without having sex with them, and not have those feelings returned. You act as if without sex there can be no deep feelings that are one sided.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So true. I can't even count the number of times I have suffered from unrequited love without even getting to first base. That pretty much describes all three years of Jr. High and a significant percentage of High School as well.

That's not the unrequited love that is being expressed here. It's the unrequited love that occurs when one gives oneself to someone fully (physically and emotionally) and it is returned; then having it suddenly ripped away. It is heartbreaking. This is not something to laugh at Angakuk, or to make light of. This has led to clinical depression and suicide and anyone with an objective view of what I'm saying would agree. But you can't agree with anything because you've already decided that anything I say must be wrong.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1176798]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And it is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone except the terminally concussed that that is exactly Maturins point. But it seems that this particular universal law is far from robust: it shrivels up at the merest hint of criticism, it withers in the presence of nay-sayers, it wilts like a hot-house flower in a cold February wind when exposed to skepticism and seems to require a whole set of special circumstances in order to even be detectable.

In fact, this universal, mathematical law is so ethereal, so very very fragile that it can only come out if everybody present already believes in it. When even a few people do not believe it, it seems, it stays completely undetectable.

Where normal theories are born out by observations of reality, this one is different: it requires reality to be altered first, and then we will all see how true it is. First everyone needs to agree with the book about free will and conscience and act accordingly: only then, in the Changed Conditions, will any evidence materialize. Until then, all we have to go on is the claims in the book.

It is a part of the wonderful circular thinking that permeates the book. In order to see that it is correct, everyone first needs to agree that it IS correct and act accordingly. Once the Brave New World is underway, we will actually get some evidence that it works as it claims it does... in the mean time, we will just have to take the books word for it. It does not offer any reason to believe that conscience works as it says it does: it makes a strong claim THAT it does, and encourages people to imagine that they feel like it does, but that is all I can find.

You have claimed in the past that by explaining what he believes, your father also demonstrated that it works that way, but in order to call something a demonstration in that fashion, some logical evidence needs to be present: it must be shown that something must logically be that way. But nothing of the kind is proffered in the book: you yourself have been unable to find it.

Strange that it never occurred to this visionary genius, this adept observer of human behavior and the sagacious inventor of the translucent robe and sexy jacket to provide people with a reason his book is correct.

It's funny how you default into your little harangue about the book not demonstrating anything.

It is funny indeed how this incredible genius seems to have forgotten to add any reason to believe he is correct, only to happily go on as if he has proven it beyond any reasonable doubt. Combined with the conceit, anyway. It would just be sad if he did not write such in such a grandiose and self-congratulatory style.

The knowledge is much more than anything logic can tell us, which can be unsound.

I am in full agreement: someone's logic can be unsound (the modal fallacy comes to mind) and this "knowledge" is not based on logic.

His findings come from astute observation,

Again, I am in full agreement: these findings come from a Lessanese "Astute Observation", which we have established is something your father believed to be true, which means that to you it requires no other evidence than it's own existence.

but you are ignoring them so that you don't have to deal with the fact that he could be right.

He could not be right about sight: we have covered that. There is no fact to dispute there. I have no reason to believe he was right about conscience, and nor does anyone who does not accept that a claim by Lessans is automatically right because of astuteness. Since conscience needs to work as described int he book for the entire solution to evil that it describes to work, I have no reason to believe any of that works either.

It's a very easy thing to do.

It is indeed very easy to dismiss your father as an idiot. That is because he made idiotic mistakes, and then wrote them down.

Then it's a skip and a hop to make fun of him and put the blame for your disapproval of what his claims tell us, on his lack of integrity.

Ermmm... no. You blame my disagreement on a lack of understanding, despite being unable to deal with the reason of my disagreement.

At no point do I blame my own disapproval "on what he tells us". You seem to be rambling incoherently here.

I disagree with the book because I see no reason to believe it is correct, and often see reason to believe it is incorrect.

Do you see how unfair that is? No you won't.

Is it unfair to require a reason to believe something to be true? Should we give this book special treatment and suspend this requirement?

That's why you keep putting him in the category of a flat earther.

No, I put him int he category of a bumbling idiot. YOU are the flat earther: when faced with evidence, you do not change your ideas, but try to argue your way around the evidence.

If he's that, then you can justify saying anything you want about him even if it's 100% wrong.

But I underpin everything I say - and give you a fair chance to rebut. It is not my fault that you are unable to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Initial lust is powerful but fleeting, like a drug high (in fact it activates the same brain areas as cocaine). In healthy, normal people sex drive waxes and wanes with hormonal fluctuations and overall health and contentment. Love is deeper can endure the sexual hills, valleys, and flat spots because there is something other than sex bonding the couple together.

Of course that's true. The bond between a man and a woman that have lived together, gone through the ups and downs of life together, been there for each other, have a major impact on love. But we're not talking about that LadyShea. Why can't you see the difference between long time love, and initial romantic love that leads to this kind of bonding?

Scientists then wondered: Does a brain in love look much like a sexually stimulated brain? After all, we associate love and sex and sometimes confuse them.

Sex drives are just as basic as hunger and thirst, but it is this very hunger that leads to love, after the fact, after the sex act is cemented. What they are trying to say is that romantic love is somehow on a lesser scale than any other kind of love, which is just not true, as much as you don't want to believe that because in your mind it objectifies us. But if you understand Chapter four, you will see that this does not objectify anyone. You are very very confused LadyShea, and you are interjecting your ideas as truth because you, and others in here who support you, are "intellectuals". Do you see the problem here, or can't you face it?

In the studies of people in love, "we didn't find activity in either," according to Dr. Fisher, an anthropologist and author of "Why We Love -- the Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love."

There is no way you can separate sex from romantic love. Take away the passion and you will not get the kind of love that they say is a different brain system. Whatever they want to call it, it's the sex that brings people together. This is nature's way to keep our species going, but at the same time bonding occurs. It even occurs in some animal species after they are committed to each other through the sexual experience and what results (the young).

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;1176801]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is funny indeed how this incredible genius seems to have forgotten to add any reason to believe he is correct, only to happily go on as if he has proven it beyond any reasonable doubt. Combined with the conceit, anyway. It would just be sad if he did not write such in such a grandiose and self-congratulatory style.

I am in full agreement: someone's logic can be unsound (the modal fallacy comes to mind) and this "knowledge" is not based on logic.

Again, I am in full agreement: these findings come from a Lessanese "Astute Observation", which we have established is something your father believed to be true, which means that to you it requires no other evidence than it's own existence.

He could not be right about sight: we have covered that. There is no fact to dispute there. I have no reason to believe he was right about conscience, and nor does anyone who does not accept that a claim by Lessans is automatically right because of astuteness. Since conscience needs to work as described int he book for the entire solution to evil that it describes to work, I have no reason to believe any of that works either.

It is indeed very easy to dismiss your father as an idiot. That is because he made idiotic mistakes, and then wrote them down.

Ermmm... no. You blame my disagreement on a lack of understanding, despite being unable to deal with the reason of my disagreement.

At no point do I blame my own disapproval "on what he tells us". You seem to be rambling incoherently here.

I disagree with the book because I see no reason to believe it is correct, and often see reason to believe it is incorrect.

Is it unfair to require a reason to believe something to be true? Should we give this book special treatment and suspend this requirement?

No, I put him int he category of a bumbling idiot. YOU are the flat earther: when faced with evidence, you do not change your ideas, but try to argue your way around the evidence.

But I underpin everything I say - and give you a fair chance to rebut. It is not my fault that you are unable to.

Not responding to this diatribe. I am sick and tired of the namecalling whether it's directed at me or my father. It appears that you cannot do anything more than yell and scream and have a histrionic shit fit. Done!