Does death give life meaning? Does happiness require struggling to survive?

[Nicky]

7 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Exactly, Eiuol. I rarely see people use that term to refer to specific thoughts, like Nicky claimed. Saying that this would imply a collective consciousness is like saying that, since people have bodies that are very much alike - eyes, legs, arms, physiological reflexes etc. - the only way to make sense of this is by assuming the existence of a collective human body.

No, it’s by assuming the existence of a collective DNA sequence that has been scientifically proven to cause all human bodies to be alike.

As soon as you can scientifically prove that the same DNA is causing our values to be alike, I will consider your argument. Until then, I will continue believing in my ability to shape my value system to be different than yours.
 

Quote

Sexual arousal is part of human psychology, which studies much more than the ‘thought-content’ of your mind. This is the meaning I was using.

 

I’m sorry, what? You claimed that humans value scarcity because of “human psychology”. Sexual arousal is an automatic physiological response (caused by human nature, coded in our DNA) to physical or visual stimulation. What does that have to do with humans VALUING (NOT an automatic response, coded in our DNA, as far as you have proven) scarcity?

 

Quote

Precisely. A handful of stylists and professional photographers go a long way to influence our automatic… whoops - our conceptual, personaly chosen value responses

You’re still conflating values with automatic sexual sensations. The former are chosen, the latter is an automatic, biological response.

[KyaryPamyu]

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

…objectively, not knowing anything about either model, neither I nor a female observer would be able make a proper judgement. We’d just have to say we do not know. All we have is two photos. So, the only value we can derive is the value of the visual: the way one does in art, with an anonymous model. 

That’s alright. I should have made this clearer, but the point is only to figure out whether:

• men have any innate, universal visual preferences - such as health, clear skin, hip-to-waist ratio, facial symetry - that transcend even cultural standards of beauty
• if visual preferences can be changed by subsequent knowledge, conceptual thinking, culture, connotation (e.g. by knowing about the characters of the two women).

If I read correctly, Nicky agrees that a picture of MEG can cause automatic pleasure responses and that a preference for the japanese singer can be manipulated via visual cues such as makeup, clothing, the quality of the photos - he does not, however, endorse the field of Psychology.

SoftwareNerd, when you talk about changing your preference, which type are you refering to? Romantic preference, or visual preference? If you showed a picture of MEG to the second woman’s husband, and the husband was madly in love with his wife, I think he would still be able to say that the pop singer is visualy superior, even though he romanticaly prefers what he already has.

In regard to whether visual preferences can be changed by subsequent knowledge, connotation and extra-visual elements: I doubt it, because of that dreaded “volition-destroying” monster which is Human Psychology. 

[Nicky]

1 minute ago, KyaryPamyu said:

If I read correctly, Nicky agrees that a picture of MEG can cause automatic pleasure responses and that a preference for the japanese singer can be manipulated via visual cues such as makeup, clothing, the quality of the photos - he does not, however, endorse the field of Psychology.

I’m rejecting your assertion that we share a common psychology, similarly to the way we share a common biology (presumably, through DNA), as an unproven, arbitrary claim.

Not sure how you got from there to the field of Psychology…which doesn’t claim anything of the sort.

[MisterSwig]

6 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

 

Quote

Which one is more scarce?

In terms of looks, the first one.

I kind of doubt that. KPP is a celebrity. More girls will copy her look. Who’s going to copy the one on the right? Nobody. That makes her a rare gem in my book. I especially like the old school microphone accessory. That’s super hot! How many women go around holding a big microphone? Like two or three in the whole world, right?

Extremely exotic. How do I get her number? My loins are on fire.

[KyaryPamyu]

23 minutes ago, Nicky said:

I’m sorry, what? You claimed that humans value scarcity because of “human psychology”. Sexual arousal is an automatic physiological response (caused by human nature, coded in our DNA) to physical or visual stimulation. What does that have to do with humans VALUING (NOT an automatic response, coded in our DNA, as far as you have proven) scarcity?

Visual stimulation precedes physical stimulation, if you’re talking about sexual arousal. It depends on who touches you! Sexual arousal is an automatic psychological response to a stimulus, but not all visual stimuli produce the same sensations. The presence or absence of attractiveness cues greatly influences the effect of the stimuli. In other words, ‘sexy-time’ starts in the head, when your brain figures out, based on the visual information provided by your eyes, that you have a Class-A Sex Bomb in front of you.

What does this have to do with valuing? Something called taste, preference. It’s no secret that physical attractiveness is a key factor in choosing a mate.

Quote

Not sure how you got from there [automatic sexual response] to the field of Psychology…which doesn’t claim anything of the sort

It does.

Just to be clear, I am not tying the sexual response to scarcity, as some of you thought. I’m adressing the broader question of what can be properly classified as human psychology, which studies a lot of different things. If you really want to know what the field of human psychology has to say about scarcity, read on wikipedia about the Scarcity Heuristic.

Quote

How many women go around holding a big microphone. Like two or three in the whole world, right? Extremely exotic. How do I get her number? My loins are on fire.

Heh. She’s not at all my type, no matter how exotic. I prefer the ol’ fashioned hot mamacita.

I have a slight doubt that this thread made more than a slight departure from the original topic. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the power of women.

[Nicky]

19 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I kind of doubt that. KPP is a celebrity. More girls will copy her look. Who’s going to copy the one on the right? Nobody. That makes her a rare gem in my book. I especially like the old school microphone accessory. That’s super hot! How many women go around holding a big microphone? Like two or three in the whole world, right?

Extremely exotic. How do I get her number? My loins are on fire.

The question shouldn’t be “which is more scarce” in the sense of “rare”, the question should be “which is harder to get”. At least that’s how the marketing trick that creates the illusion of scarcity to sell you on things works: it exploits our desire to compete with others, and buy something that is rare (and therefor possessing it sets us apart), rather than something that we need to better our lives.

That’s why so many people value scarcity irrationally: western culture often values competition above more rational paths to self esteem, and that causes people to put unwarranted extra value on things not everyone can possess.

And it’s a bad habit that’s relatively easy to break, once you’re conscious of it and look for it within your decision making. It’s certainly not “a part of human nature”. Just because it’s easy to ascribe faults we have to “human nature” when we don’t understand the cause, doesn’t mean we should.

[DonAthos]

2 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

• if visual preferences can be changed by subsequent knowledge, conceptual thinking, culture, connotation (e.g. by knowing about the characters of the two women).

[…]

If you showed a picture of MEG to the second woman’s husband, and the husband was madly in love with his wife, I think he would still be able to say that the pop singer is visualy superior, even though he romanticaly prefers what he already has.

Just to speak briefly to this issue (as a married man).

I can recognize that there are many women in the world who are “visually superior” to my wife, but there are no women I find more attractive than my wife.

Furthermore, what I experience when I look at a woman (in terms of what I would describe as “attraction”) absolutely does depend on subsequent knowledge. There are women that I might initially find “hot,” but when I get to know their character, my reaction on the whole changes such that I no longer feel any sexual draw.

Does that mean that I can no longer recognize the visual characteristics that led me to consider them “hot” in the first place? No. If someone else were to say, “Wow, she’s great looking,” I could agree… but without enthusiasm, or in a qualified way. Conversely, a woman who draws only a tepid reaction from me initially can become much more attractive, when I know her better, such that when I see her, I “see her differently” thereafter, in terms of my emotional/sexual reaction. Yet I can retain the perspective as well that such a woman probably will not do a Maxim photo shoot.

And even further, I believe that all of these attractions are fundamentally connected to values. (Which is not to put myself on one side or the other of the “innate values”/“free will” discussion.) There are women that most of the world, it sometimes seems, considers attractive – just in terms of the “visual.” Yet I tend not to be drawn to certain types, which I account to a… misplaced focus, or an unreality, that their appearance suggests to me. Off the top of my head, I could mention Pamela Anderson or even Jessica Rabbit. My rejection is not alone based upon my knowledge of their individual character(s), but what the visual suggests of character (to be amended later by better or fuller knowledge).

[softwareNerd]

I see that we’ve hijacked the main topic here! 

Back on the main topic, there’s a “Twilight Zone” episode “A Nice Place to Visit” that tries to visualize what heaven might be like. Worth watching, since art is often better than a series of syllogisms.

 

[Nicky]

On 12/31/2016 at 5:42 PM, KyaryPamyu said:

It does.

From your own link: "Some suggest that psychological sexual arousal results from an interaction of cognitive and experiential factors, such as affective state, previous experience, and current social context "

So your own link lists everything except “human nature” as the cause of a psychological reaction, directly contradicting your claim.

Besides, you still haven’t explained what sex has to do with your claim that valuing scarcity is “human nature”.

[MisterSwig]

On 12/31/2016 at 7:42 AM, Nicky said:

The question shouldn’t be “which is more scarce” in the sense of “rare”, the question should be “which is harder to get”.

I’m sure Microphone is harder to get. I have no earthly idea who or where she is. But with a little effort I could at least send KPP flowers, a card, and boxed chocolates through her agency, and then with some extra effort I could attend her next public event and try to kidnap her. 

[KyaryPamyu]

12 hours ago, Nicky said:

From your own link: "Some suggest that psychological sexual arousal results from an interaction of cognitive and experiential factors, such as affective state, previous experience, and current social context "

So your own link lists everything except “human nature” as the cause of a psychological reaction, directly contradicting your claim.

In proper context, the purpose of the link was to contradict your claim that sexual arousal is not part of the things studied by the field of Psychology, as quoted below:

Quote

Not sure how you got from there to the field of Psychology…which doesn’t claim anything of the sort.

Since then, your views seem to have evolved from your original claim of sexual arousal being:

Quote

an automatic physiological response (caused by human nature, coded in our DNA) to physical or visual stimulation.

…to also calling it a psychological reaction. Although you were merely describing the contents of the link, so you might or not have agreed that sexual arousal is part of Psychology.

Did I make claims about human nature? no. If you read through my posts, you’ll see that I was always talking about Psychology. I think I made it clear that my definition of Psychology is the same as Eiuol’s.  I am quoting it from his post:

Quote

Human psychology refers to the nature of the human mind. One’s psychology is a different concept than psychology the nature of human thought.

I used the phrase ‘human nature’ only once, and only because this term is in the name of the popular debate that’s going on right now about whether the mind has any innate cognitive structures, such as those that decode cues of female physical attractiveness (not to be confused with Kantianism).

Quote

Besides, you still haven’t explained what sex has to do with your claim that valuing scarcity is “human nature”.

I have not claimed that valuing scarcity is “human nature”. Here’s the actual claim:

Quote

In brief, it’s part of human psychology to value things that are scarce.

And regarding the connection between sex and valuing scarcity, I will have to repost the contents of the previous post in which I adressed your claim:

Quote

Just to be clear, I am not tying the sexual response to scarcity, as some of you thought. I’m adressing the broader question of what can be properly classified as human psychology, which studies a lot of different things. If you really want to know what the field of human psychology has to say about scarcity, read on wikipedia about the Scarcity Heuristic.

---

On 31.12.2016 at 9:05 PM, softwareNerd said:

I see that we’ve hijacked the main topic here! 

Back on the main topic, there’s a “Twilight Zone” episode “A Nice Place to Visit” that tries to visualize what heaven might be like. Worth watching, since art is often better than a series of syllogisms.

 

Thanks for reminding me of that episode, softwareNerd. It’s an absolutely brilliant take on the pursuit of happiness.

MisterSwig, some insight on Microphone girl. Her name is Jennifer Lien and she played the alien Kes in _Star Trek: The Voyager. _Here is a picture of her during the Star Trek days, but I warn you… don’t look at it if you believe in marriage: 

6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

But with a little effort I could at least send KPP flowers, a card, and boxed chocolates through her agency, and then with some extra effort I could attend her next public event and try to kidnap her. 

Don’t you dare touch my woman

[Nicky]

45 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

In proper context, the purpose of the link was to contradict your claim that sexual arousal is not part of the things studied by the field of Psychology, as quoted below:

Here’s the full post you were responding to:

Quote

 

I’m rejecting your assertion that we share a common psychology, similarly to the way we share a common biology (presumably, through DNA), as an unproven, arbitrary claim.

Not sure how you got from there to the field of Psychology…which doesn’t claim anything of the sort.

 

Just so you know why you won’t be getting any replies from me anymore:  I have a general policy. When I have to quote back posts to someone I’m talking to, because they’re blatantly lying about what’s in them, I stop talking to them.

[MisterSwig]

Proof that death is necessary for life to have any meaning.

She makes me want to die and become a vampire stud.

[KyaryPamyu]

20 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Here’s the full post you were responding to.

Nicky, you posted that as a response to a very specific claim I made on sexual arousal. Hence, it appeared that you were refering to ‘common psychology’ in the context of sexual attraction. I put those brackets when I quoted you back, in case you might object to my understanding of your post. Since you didn’t say anything I asumed that it was indeed what you meant.

No hard feelings about your ‘policy’.

[KyaryPamyu]

12 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Proof that death is necessary for life to have any meaning.

She makes me want to die and become a vampire stud.

At least we’re back on topic… (barely). I guess trolling is part of universal Internet Psychology.

[StrictlyLogical]

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 2:28 PM, epistemologue said:

Do you think death is necessary to make life meaningful? Is the struggle for survival necessary for happiness?

1.  Death is not avoidable.  The nature of the universe as understood currently is that it is expanding and growing colder, taking into account that it is a finite system of finite size - it also has finite energy, and that all processes necessarily increase overall entropy, eventually… and it will be a VERY VERY VERY VERY, long time from now… processes such as consciousness and life will be impossible.

Remember, “forever” is NOT just a long time from now… it literally implies something continuing indefinitely into the future.

There literally is no “when we achieve immortality” so discussions of “what to do” when that happens are pointless.

 

2.  Survival requires “work”.  Expenditure of energy and effort, in order to sustain it.  Work is NOT suffering unless one is has a deeply flawed view/expectation of existence and life.

 

Happiness does not require suffering, but it does require “life” which requires effort.

 

One can choose to be alive and unhappy or alive and happy, but for either choice one must do what is required to live… and one cannot live long, happy or not, without effort of any kind.  You see, life requires effort and happiness is a condition only of the living.  If you wish a life of happiness you need to accept effort as a part of life.

  

[MisterSwig]

15 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

At least we’re back on topic… (barely). I guess trolling is part of universal Internet Psychology.

After giving you and Nicky a hard time, I figured the least I could do was sort of get back on topic.

Death doesn’t give life meaning. Life gives life meaning. Death gives life a purpose, though, which is to stay alive–usually.

I could be wrong.

[epistemologue]

On 1/2/2017 at 9:47 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

1.  Death is not avoidable.  The nature of the universe as understood currently is that it is expanding and growing colder, taking into account that it is a finite system of finite size - it also has finite energy, and that all processes necessarily increase overall entropy, eventually… and it will be a VERY VERY VERY VERY, long time from now… processes such as consciousness and life will be impossible.

Remember, “forever” is NOT just a long time from now… it literally implies something continuing indefinitely into the future.

There literally is no “when we achieve immortality” so discussions of “what to do” when that happens are pointless.

This claim is unproven and completely uncertain. It is absurd to assume that one’s self and the universe as a whole are headed toward inevitable doom and eternal oblivion, there’s no justification for making a malevolent assumption of this nature.

[StrictlyLogical]

1 hour ago, epistemologue said:

The nature of the universe as understood currently

 

[epistemologue]

@StrictlyLogical That is not a reasonable “understanding” of the universe.