My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[Hux]

In the sense that it is a "misfiring" natural behaviour. There is an obvious reason why (most) humans have a strong sex drive. It is there to drive us to reproduce. Sometimes humans become sexually attracted to the "wrong" thing - members of their own sex, animals, dead bodies, inflicting pain or experiencing pain, and in at least one recorded case a white mini metro. I'd say all these are examples of a natural behaviour that has gone wrong.

I don't have any sort of problem with homosexuals. I live in the "gay capital" of the UK - a city where homosexuality and all other forms of (legal) sexual-oddness is openly acknowledged and accepted. I am not saying it is morally wrong or unacceptable.

How can it be 'misfiring'? There is no doubt that sexual drive, fired by testosterone and Oestrogen is one of the strongest drives in animals, and it causes all sorts of couplings. This works so that most couplings result in offspring. But to say there is misfiring is just plain wrong. Primates (and cetaceans come to that matter) have recreational sex. Not every act between an man and a woman is designed nor desired to provide offspring. The incidence of 'homosexual' acts in the animal kingdom is such that is it viewed as a natural expression of the high sexuality in the animals themselves. It is about as 'misfiring' as masturbation.

I doubt many would equate homosexuality as 'wrong' in the same sense as shagging a dead body.

BTW where is the Homosexual capitol in the UK?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/f...we-never-quite-fell-in-love-with-1145901.html

Falling sales and sneers from other drivers dented the little car's image, but by far its lowest moment was unconnected to manufacturing problems.

The Metro attracted infamy and humiliation for its owners when, in 1994, it was revealed as the sexual partner of choice for a disturbed 20-year- old man, who was treated for his fetish at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. The Metro's biggest fan said he found it particularly arousing when the car's exhaust pipe belched fumes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

How can it be 'misfiring'? There is no doubt that sexual drive, fired by testosterone and Oestrogen is one of the strongest drives in animals, and it causes all sorts of couplings. This works so that most couplings result in offspring. But to say there is misfiring is just plain wrong. Primates (and cetaceans come to that matter) have recreational sex. Not every act between an man and a woman is designed nor desired to provide offspring. The incidence of 'homosexual' acts in the animal kingdom is such that is it viewed as a natural expression of the high sexuality in the animals themselves. It is about as 'misfiring' as masturbation.

I doubt many would equate homosexuality as 'wrong' in the same sense as shagging a dead body.

Apart from the political-correctness aspect and the number of people involved, I don't see what the difference is.

BTW where is the Homosexual capitol in the UK?

The City of Brighton and Hove.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press045.html

A Christian witness at the 'gay and lesbian' 'Brighton Pride' touched a nerve on Saturday 4th August this year. Brighton 'Gay Pride' is billed as Europe's biggest homosexual event, but the thousands of homosexuals took great exception to a small witness of just 20 Christians at the southern entrance to the City's Preston Park.

'Shame on you', chanted an overweight man, clutching his 'boyfriend's' hand, seemingly unaware of the paradox of accusing others of shame while foaming out his own shame (Jude 1:13). Such perversion merely demonstrates the truth of the Bible when it says 'the unjust knoweth no shame' (Zeph 3:5). The Apostle Paul also writes of those 'Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly (Greek 'koilia') and whose glory is in their shame' (Phil 3:19).

A small contingent of police officers facilitated the lawful Christian witness and prevented disorder. Arrests were made of a couple of individuals among a number whose enthusiasm for the principles of diversity, possibly enhanced by some alcoholic refreshment, compelled them to launch bottles and cans, most of them empty, at the Christians.

Others vented their hatred by yelling 'Where are the lions?' Things have not changed that much since the early Christians paid the ultimate price by objecting to the Roman concept of multifaith diversity and insisting 'Jesus Christ is Lord'.

You can be openly gay in Brighton, but you're likely to get into trouble for being openly Christian.

 

[Robin]

In the sense that it is a "misfiring" natural behaviour. There is an obvious reason why (most) humans have a strong sex drive. It is there to drive us to reproduce. Sometimes humans become sexually attracted to the "wrong" thing - members of their own sex, animals, dead bodies, inflicting pain or experiencing pain, and in at least one recorded case a white mini metro. I'd say all these are examples of a natural behaviour that has gone wrong.

I don't have any sort of problem with homosexuals. I live in the "gay capital" of the UK - a city where homosexuality and all other forms of (legal) sexual-oddness are openly acknowledged and accepted. I am not saying it is morally wrong or unacceptable.

I am not saying you are - but you do seem to have this anthropomorphic view of nature, as if there is a "right" and a "wrong" thing.

The guy who is attracted to the mini metro is just as much a thing existing in nature as anybody or anything else. His behaviour is natural - it is just that nature is not the tidy, orderly planner that everybody seems to expect it to be.

But on the other hand if you are saying that this is just like a homosexual relationship it is a bit like saying that somebody who worshipped a car is just like anybody who has a religious belief.

 

[Robin]

You can be openly gay in Brighton, but you're likely to get into trouble for being openly Christian.

Yes, that sounds like a really disinterested source. Such even handed and professional coverage too.

 

[Robin]

Apart from the political-correctness aspect and the number of people involved, I don't see what the difference is.

You don't see the difference between a homosexual relationship and shagging a dead body? Are you serious?

Do you see a difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship, apart from the fact that impregnation is possible in many heterosexual relationships?

Or are you saying that all sexual relationships are just like shagging dead bodies?

 

[rocketdodger]

Why are we even arguing about this?

From UE's history on this forum, we know he/she is a closet theist who feels certain things are absolutely right and wrong.

Any claim that he/she is accepting of homosexuals must be taken with that gigantic grain of salt. And note that he/she has only said "accepting" -- a very weak word indeed.

The fact that he/she thinks reproduction is somehow "right" -- without defining why "right" should be an applicable term to reproduction, and while refusing to acknowledge that any selective advantage is also "right" -- is representative of his/her sentiment.

So, again, why are you people arguing with UE about homosexuality?

 

[westprog]

Or right for that matter.

I really ought to learn to put in a smiley when I am making a joke.

But I would have to point out that cancer has no selective disadvantage either, overwhelmingly it hits after the age of reproduction.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it won't have a disadvantage. If the group suffers because useful people are dying of cancer, then there may be a reproductive advantage to the group in breeding it out. If you rely on granny to look after the kids while you're gathering berries, or selling insurance, it will make the kids survival less likely if granny dies. And the kids will share genes with granny. Children whose granny is around to look after them might have better survival chances. So eventually we may all be cancer proof. But if there turns out to be no significant advantage, we might be stuck with it.

These are just hypotheticals, of course. Generally it's a matter of seeing ways in which certain things might have evolved. If homosexual behaviour exists, then it's likely that some selective advantage for it can be found.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why are we even arguing about this?

From UE's history on this forum, we know he/she is a closet theist who feels certain things are absolutely right and wrong.

I'm not a "closet" anything. I am one of the most open and genuine people you are ever likely to encounter. And by most people's understanding what "theist" means, I'm not a theist. My views are much closer to Taoism and Hinduism than to Abrahamic theism. Neither do I feel most things are absolutely right or wrong, and in this particular case I'm not even talking about moral correctness. Do you actually read my posts?

Any claim that he/she is accepting of homosexuals must be taken with that gigantic grain of salt.

For ten years (he's dead now) my best friend was homosexual. I associate with numerous homosexuals in my own city. I even rented out a room in my house to a homosexual.

The fact that he/she thinks reproduction is somehow "right" -- without defining why "right" should be an applicable term to reproduction

I said exactly what "right" means in this case. "Right" means "the system is doing what it is supposed to do - what it evolved to do." Moral correctness is something else entirely - it is not morally right to have more than two children because the planet is overpopulated. The "best" thing to do right now is to have no children at all.

So, again, why are you people arguing with UE about homosexuality?

Perhaps they like to have debates, rather than trying to close them down with absurd, unfounded accusations?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You don't see the difference between a homosexual relationship and shagging a dead body? Are you serious?

Do you see a difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship, apart from the fact that impregnation is possible in many heterosexual relationships?

Or are you saying that all sexual relationships are just like shagging dead bodies?

I am saying there is normal sex and there is everything else. Homosexuality and necrophilia, for me, both fall into the category of "everything else."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If homosexual behaviour exists, then it's likely that some selective advantage for it can be found.

It's not that simple. Some characteristics are not there because of selective advantage but because of random factors like genetic drift or side-effects of something else which had a selective advantage. Difficulty in childbirth in humans doesn't exist because of a selective advantage, but because there is a massive selective advantage in having big brains - an advantage that is powerful enough to over-ride a natural mortality rate during childbirth which is the highest in the animal world. Red hair has no selective advantage either.

 

[Hux]

I am saying there is normal sex and there is everything else. Homosexuality and necrophilia, for me, both fall into the category of "everything else."

Holy crap. I really dont know where you get off deciding what is 'normal'. Human imagination is a fine thing and we can think up some pretty raunchy stuff if we have a mind to it - but to suggest everything else other than hetero reproductive sex is therefore 'abnormal' -which is what you mean when you say everything else other than normal - is plainly ridiculous.

So Homosexuals are no different to necrophiliacs and paedophiles? I submit that you are just employing the slippery slope argument and one that people of a one time religious bent (and you still seem involved in Woo) used to justify their prejudice.

It is precisely that Homosexuality is a biological fact that infers no disadvantage to a population that makes it a normal state of affairs. But any sexual activity that involves dead bodies, or little children is quite beyond the moral pale. To equivocate a ordinary biological activity with shagging a dead body, or abusing a child is frankly nuts and you need to have a rethink.

Brighton Eh? I bet the football fans of Brighton and Hove Albion are absolutely fabulous with fabrics?

 

[Hux]

It's not that simple. Some characteristics are not there because of selective advantage but because of random factors like genetic drift or side-effects of something else which had a selective advantage. Difficulty in childbirth in humans doesn't exist because of a selective advantage, but because there is a massive selective advantage in having big brains - an advantage that is powerful enough to over-ride a natural mortality rate during childbirth which is the highest in the animal world. Red hair has no selective advantage either.

You need to bear in mind that traits survive because they possess no selective 'disadvantage' . Homosexuals are people too. Historically they have as much fecundity as Hetero's. Due to their circumstances many, throughout History have had to marry and survive totally against their natural characters. Kings and Queens did it all the time. So Homosexuality infers no disadvantage to the population. Time will tell nowadays. With gays not needing to hide their sexuality, they may live more openly and do nothing to reproduce - maybe. But show me a guy who is stroking some other guy's dick in private and Ill show you someone who's not causing any trouble.

 

[Dancing David]

It's not that simple. Some characteristics are not there because of selective advantage but because of random factors like genetic drift or side-effects of something else which had a selective advantage. Difficulty in childbirth in humans doesn't exist because of a selective advantage, but because there is a massive selective advantage in having big brains - an advantage that is powerful enough to over-ride a natural mortality rate during childbirth which is the highest in the animal world. Red hair has no selective advantage either.

Ooops you got this wrong too!

maybe you should read about stuff.

Human babies have small heads comparatively speaking, if humans were able to walk and function highly at birth, theyw ould be much larger.

One of the things that potentialy drove human brain development is the smaller cranium driven possibly by the upright gait and narrowing of the female pelvis.

This led possibly to neotany which leads possibly to advanced brain development.

Sheesh.

ETA: Do you have data on birth survival by species?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Holy crap. I really dont know where you get off deciding what is 'normal'.

What is the problem here? First somebody attacks me for not defining what I mean, then somebody else attacks me for defining what I mean. Looks like I can't win, doesn't it?

Human imagination is a fine thing and we can think up some pretty raunchy stuff if we have a mind to it - but to suggest everything else other than hetero reproductive sex is therefore 'abnormal' -which is what you mean when you say everything else other than normal - is plainly ridiculous.

Why? Why is it any more ridiculous for me to say this than it is for you to say that what I am saying is ridiculous. Please explain why you think it is ridiculous.

So Homosexuals are no different to necrophiliacs and paedophiles? I submit that you are just employing the slippery slope argument and one that people of a one time religious bent (and you still seem involved in Woo) used to justify their prejudice.

I said homosexuality was no different to other forms of "sexual deviancy" only in so much as they are all examples of sexual abnormality. I didn't say they were "no different" to each other. Clearly some forms of sexual abnormality pose serious ethical problems, at least when actually acted upon against the will of another person.

As for my religious history, it's the other way around. I was a materialistic, deterministic atheist for most of my life and I now have spiritual beliefs which are similar to those held by Taoists, Hindus and Buddhists. If you want to label that "woo" then that's your business.

It is precisely that Homosexuality is a biological fact that infers no disadvantage to a population that makes it a normal state of affairs.

It is a disadvantage under the strict terms of "reproductive fitness" refered to in evolutionary theory.

But any sexual activity that involves dead bodies, or little children is quite beyond the moral pale.

People are NOT reading what I am writing. I have stated about three times that I am *NOT* talking about morality. When I said "homosexuality is an example of something going wrong" I am talking purely in terms of biological processes. I am saying NOTHING about morality or society.

To equivocate a ordinary biological activity with shagging a dead body, or abusing a child is frankly nuts and you need to have a rethink.

I didn't actually say what you are accusing me of saying. You are misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Brighton Eh? I bet the football fans of Brighton and Hove Albion are absolutely fabulous with fabrics?

I tend to stay away from them. I support Crystal Palace.

 

[Hux]

Biologists consider that females spit out their kids before their true gestation period otherwise the big brained kids wouldn't get passed the pelvic girdle. So while there had to be a very strong selection pressure for big brains, they have to be spat out "Scarce finished before my time". Since we know the brain utilises vast amounts of energy, the selective pressure for big brains, so biologists reckon, forced females into delivering before they really should.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You need to bear in mind that traits survive because they possess no selective 'disadvantage' . Homosexuals are people too. Historically they have as much fecundity as Hetero's. Due to their circumstances many, throughout History have had to marry and survive totally against their natural characters. Kings and Queens did it all the time. So Homosexuality infers no disadvantage to the population. Time will tell nowadays. With gays not needing to hide their sexuality, they may live more openly and do nothing to reproduce - maybe. But show me a guy who is stroking some other guy's dick in private and Ill show you someone who's not causing any trouble.

I never said they were causing trouble. Given that I believe there are already about four times as many humans as the Earth can sustainably support, I'd say it is the heterosexuals that are causing most of the trouble...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Ooops you got this wrong too!

maybe you should read about stuff.

Well, I studied it at university....

Human babies have small heads comparatively speaking, if humans were able to walk and function highly at birth, theyw ould be much larger.

Human babies have massive heads. Please don't lecture me about not knowing what I'm talking about.

ETA: Do you have data on birth survival by species?

I don't need any. There are no other species which went down the evolutionary path of everything being invested in powerful cognitive power. You only have to spend a week watching the Discovery Channel to conclude that most animals do not share humanity's difficulty in giving birth.

 

[Hux]

What is the problem here? First somebody attacks me for not defining what I mean, then somebody else attacks me for defining what I mean. Looks like I can't win, doesn't it?



Why? Why is it any more ridiculous for me to say this than it is for you to say that what I am saying is ridiculous. Please explain why you think it is ridiculous.



I said homosexuality was no different to other forms of "sexual deviancy" only in so much as they are all examples of sexual abnormality. I didn't say they were "no different" to each other. Clearly some forms of sexual abnormality pose serious ethical problems, at least when actually acted upon against the will of another person.

As for my religious history, it's the other way around. I was a materialistic, deterministic atheist for most of my life and I now have spiritual beliefs which are similar to those held by Taoists, Hindus and Buddhists. If you want to label that "woo" then that's your business.



It is a disadvantage under the strict terms of "reproductive fitness" refered to in evolutionary theory.



People are NOT reading what I am writing. I have stated about three times that I am *NOT* talking about morality. When I said "homosexuality is an example of something going wrong" I am talking purely in terms of biological processes. I am saying NOTHING about morality or society.



I didn't actually say what you are accusing me of saying. You are misinterpreting what I'm saying.



I tend to stay away from them. I support Crystal Palace.

How shall I put this? You are just plain wrong. No one is talking about morality but you clearly cannot judge between a normal human preference and downright perversity as you lump them all as not normal. Other than a religious and false premise, please tell me (and everyone else that cares about it) what it is you consider abnormal about Homosexuality?

There are supernatural elements to the things you believe in now and that's Woo. What do these doctrines of Buddhism, Taoism etc have to say about Puffs?

For the record I was once like you. I thought homosexuality was wrong. I thought, if you allow this....you know the rest. But I convinced myself I had no basis moral or natural to consider that people were the way their nature made them. You still have not explained in what manner Homosexuality is something gone wrong.

I know all I need to know about you since you are a Crystal Palace fan.

 

[Hux]

I never said they were causing trouble. Given that I believe there are already about four times as many humans as the Earth can sustainably support, I'd say it is the heterosexuals that are causing most of the trouble...

I think you know exactly what I meant.