the BRAIN...love vs. sex

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Save Teh Brian!

Who is Brian, and why does he require saving????

(Sorry TinkleFlower I just could not resist ...You may feel free now to pick on my atrocious spelling issues)

Naw see that was the point....

I used to hang on an intranet message board at my old place of work...the topics were cardiology (echocardiograms more specifically) and brain atrophy.

And there was one girl...

Who could never, ever spell "brain" correctly.

She'd always put "brian". You can imagine the fun

(and I remembered it when I posted on here, cos I'd been talking to her over Messenger)

(but since you asked...if I find out who Brian is, I'll let you know )

Knowledge and lack of knowledge of BRIAN (the incarnation of Christ himself) are relatively good indicators of ATS tenure.

holY CONspiracy Batman. Marshall the forces against ignorance, etc etc, children.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Knowledge and lack of knowledge of BRIAN (the incarnation of Christ himself) are relatively good indicators of ATS tenure.

holY CONspiracy Batman. Marshall the forces against ignorance, etc etc, children.

Darn, looks like I blew my cover.

Don't tell anyone.

Or I'll sic Brian on you....



(I digress. Back to the topic. "Love at first sight" is about chemistry, absolutely....but it's more than just lust)

AH HA! PROOF IT IS ALL CHEMCIALS!

(Oh come on, you knew I'd find this sooner or later...)

Now then, we see that the brain is nothing more than electrical sparks making up "love." I knew it all along, you laughed at me, told me it was something more than trancends the body, but here it is, proof that your love is NOTHING more than chemicals moving ions!

Since I enjoy be pseudo-sadistic, I will mention this means that "love" is able to be controlled. Someone could use chemicals to control your most precious, most utterly human and emotional feeling to there very wills, be it sick and twisted or not.

This also means it can be disabled. Add or remove enough of the chemical and you no longer love that man or woman to your last dying breathe? Brilliant science!

I personally consider male and female the same person in terms of behavior and personality and that they both function with the same, rational, concious mind, most of the time.....and possibly, with this new found system, All the time....

Everyone knew the sex drive was a basic evolutionary system for procreation, and could be tamed by the self aware mind. However, they said you couldn't control love, but rather it controls you. LIES. You can control that pathetic emotion, even if you need medication to do so.

Lets see what they make of that...

Very interesting perspective Raideur......could be your right, I dunno.

The test that I origonally posted about, was showing brain function thought synapsis as stronger in the love emotion than in the desire for sex. They were saying it was a chemical reaction.....
They made NO mention however about this being something that medication effects. So I do not KNOW if what your suggesting is true or not.

things that make ya go hmmmmmmm.

[edit on 22-6-2005 by theRiverGoddess]

Everyone knew the sex drive was a basic evolutionary system for procreation, and could be tamed by the self aware mind. However, they said you couldn't control love, but rather it controls you.

Thus it being more powerful. This only confirms the common sense.
I was actually surprised no one gasped at such ideas, most those who actually are "in love." Perhaps those will come later, but I know they will fight such an assumption or seriously reconsider the emotional blindness they are experiencing.

Everyone is so scared of the idea of their emotions being stolen without there knowledge by the governement. Little do they know, it would be the most clarifying thing possible.

Originally posted by Raideur
Everyone is so scared of the idea of their emotions being stolen without there knowledge by the governement. Little do they know, it would be the most clarifying thing possible.

What do you mean by this? I am a little confused by your implication here.....are you suggesting humans would be better off with NO emotions?
Why would you think this?

www.ignorancedenied.com...

That says it all, but yes, this would be a far better place than we can imagine without emotions. I know you will guard what you call your humanity forever, it is obvious that it holds us back more than it helps us.

I'm not so sure.

Without emotions - there would be no compassion.

Without compassion, how would we care about the welfare of others?

(Obviously, if someone has no desire to care about the welfare of anyone other than themselvs, the above point is moot)

Without emotions, there would be no desire to see things change - as emotion is tied to happiness, sadness, comfort, discomfort, joy, despair.

Motivation is so often ruled by emotion, too - without emotion, would motivation fall by the wayside, too?

I'd fear we'd become the equivalent of robots - merely existing, never actually experiencing or living life.

But that's just me. To me, the presence of emotion does not equate to the absence of reason.





[edit on 23-6-2005 by Tinkleflower]

Do not be so quick to link every human trait to emotions.

Humans would still explore the universe, they would learn, and they would better themselves simply because its the evolutionary goal. You must work for the good of the whole so that you can continue to evolve and insure your species survival. Thus, even without the emotional motivation, we would continue the progress.

Life is not worth living if you fight an endless battle with yourself.

And the only way to achieve real peace is to remove one side.
And I dare not imagine what the world would be like with us controlled by emotions alone. Makes me want to shudder.

Originally posted by Raideur

And the only way to achieve real peace is to remove one side.

But wouldn't that just leave you with real pieces?

[OLWAM]

That's perhaps the difficulty here though, Raideur....

It doesn't have to be so black and white, all or nothing. Extremes of that nature will absolutely lead to problems...on both ends of the scale.

Just as it would be foolish to be controlled by emotion, it would be foolish to live completely devoid of emotion.

That's why I keep saying "balance". The middle ground. A situation where emotions can be acknowledged and utilised, and then discarded.

Emotions can be inherently tied to action (and indeed, inaction)....and as there are obviously incidences of emotions leading to negative actions, there are just as many incidences of emotion leading to positive change.

Why would it be foolish for someone to be devoid of emotions?

I would think they would be far more intelligent and sane than any of us.