Originally posted by coldangel_1:
You will find that human beings all inherently loathe one another, but because of the weak clan-based dynamic in our makeup we are unfortunately forced to associate due to necessity - for survival. Life partners are not people we 'love', just the ones we hate the least. Make no mistake though - there is no bliss involved, and two people can never spend ALL their time together - they'd kill each other after the unreleased contempt finally boils over.

Ah, yes. Humans, eh? I'll never understand this particular species. Not that there's any necessity to - just kill them all! I mean... Uh... Very interesting incites into Fry and Leela's possible relationship!

The size of the doodle is not as important as how you use it.

Similarly, without chemical cohesion between the molecule chains in our brains and DNA there can be no love. So what is greater? Love or biochemistry?

I do quite alright without any love in my life at all... but that's just me.

Concern for the partner's well-being is also derived from a reproductive mechanism. Can't reproduce with a dead or disinterested partner.

Of course, it all becomes rather convoluted when you throw abstract thought into the mix, and we begin applying needlessly complex and lofty webs of promulgated meaning and motivation to the simplest traits bestowed upon us by our ape-like forebears. I think we do this partly out of a deep rooted terror at the idea that we may not be as special and divine as we like to think we are... that we're just animals after all.

Personally I fail to see the problem with that.
Grrrr!

We stopped using our hands to walk on and began using them as manipulator appengages, and in so doing our brain function swelled to accommodate all the new and amazing things we could potentially do besides eat and shit. But the effect of that would also mean (in biological terms) a completely superflous increase in brain function across the board... Art, literature, sicence, love; all products of runaway brain function as a result of an evolutionary quirk that is at the same time our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.

With our minds so boosted, we've the capability to become the Gods of our youthful myths - to stand with our technology against nature itself and attain immortality. But ingenuity is not the only thing that's been blown out of proportion - our base impulses have also been exaggerated to a ridiculous extent... territorialism became prejudice, hate, and manifests as wholesale slaughter. Survival instinct bred vast unnatural cities and industry to support them, which threatens to destroy the world. Desire to mate became an insanely pointless intricate social tangle manifesting as this imaginary 'love' concept.

It's the good with the bad with the pointless. Our brains are really too big - all of human experience is an exaggeration of fact... like the components of a simple mechanism placed under an electron microscope so they appear more complex than they really are, and far FAR too large for anyone to tell what they really are.

Hey hey, nice SP

Just as long as you know it's just a contrived pretense and nothing more, then you can enjoy it to your heart's content.


Nice pic SP!

 

Originally said by coldangel_1:

[Lots]

...Of course, it all becomes rather convoluted when you throw abstract thought into the mix, and we begin applying needlessly complex and lofty webs of promulgated meaning and motivation to the simplest traits bestowed upon us by our ape-like forebears. I think we do this partly out of a deep rooted terror at the idea that we may not be as special and divine as we like to think we are... that we're just animals after all.

...With our minds so boosted, we've the capability to become the Gods of our youthful myths - to stand with our technology against nature itself and attain immortality. But ingenuity is not the only thing that's been blown out of proportion - our base impulses have also been exaggerated to a ridiculous extent... territorialism became prejudice, hate, and manifests as wholesale slaughter. Survival instinct bred vast unnatural cities and industry to support them, which threatens to destroy the world. Desire to mate became an insanely pointless intricate social tangle manifesting as this imaginary 'love' concept.

...It's the good with the bad with the pointless. Our brains are really too big - all of human experience is an exaggeration of fact... like the components of a simple mechanism placed under an electron microscope so they appear more complex than they really are, and far FAR too large for anyone to tell what they really are.

You're being rather arrogant in assuming that we are in a position which threatens to destroy the world. However, back to 'love'. 'Love' is not imaginary, nor is it an 'insanely pointless intricate social tangle' derived from the desire to mate. I think you'll find that lesbian couple you know agreeing with me on this point.

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:

Just as long as you know it's just a contrived pretense and nothing more, then you can enjoy it to your heart's content.

Has the concept of pride gone completely out the window? Your arguments, I'm afraid, are also an 'exaggeration of fact'.

As a human, and having at least some pride in being human, I claim to have emotions, which are more important than my body's genetic influences. On what do I make this claim?

There are several major biological instincts that are biochemically motivated, such as a desire for food, a desire for comfort, a desire for companionship (as you've stated previously), and a desire to mate. All of these have been honed down to reliable standards by millions of years' evolutionary screening.

Emotions are not these desires. Hunger of the stomach is one of these desires. Love is not. 'Love' is merely a concept that couples a chunk of the companionship instinct and a slice of the mating instinct into one layered cake and then tries to sell itself off as a one-of-a-kind naturally-formed low-calorie intelligence substitute. Love is a random mixture of two instincts on the part of two separate entities.

Perhaps this is why love is always so misunderstood. People seem to think it's a natural drive, when it is not. It's a concept. Not a 'contrived pretense'. A concept. A concept that must and only can be learned, and one that people also must realize is perceived differently by every single individual. Virgil says 'Love conquers all' (aka, 'Omni vincit amor'). Victor Herbert says it's the 'sweet mystery of life'. Dorthy Parker denies it exists at all. Dean Martin says it's 'whena the moon hitsa you eye like a big pizza pie'. The variations are endless.

Ernest Rutherford once remarked that all of science was either physics or stamp collecting. By stamp collecting, he essentially meant taxonomy and the defining of labels for concepts. Undoubtedly boring, that is, surely. But important, so long as the process isn't exaggerated like you've what made me do here. I have attempted to define love, to show that it unquestionably is related but is not the directly the result of biochemistry, or instinct, or any other inherent animal drives. The concepts of 'love' embody some of the deepest urges in the human species; all the word does is bind them together and label them. And that gives us something to work with.

As humans, we are superior to other life forms in the animal kingdom, and I am proud of that. However, we do still have 'urges' and 'instincts' stemming from our biochemical makeup. But we've quantified them all, much as I have just demonstrated with love, and labeled them as various 'emotions'. These, we are not able to control, as there is no such thing as kolinahr. But in our 'quantification', we have given ourselves understanding, and in that understanding, we can control, if not our instincts, then at least our actions. That is why humans are more 'special and divine' (in your own words) than most animals. That is why we take care of those weaker than us, even though that violates our strict survival-of-the-fittest evolutionary policy. That is what makes us strong as a species.

Without love, the biochemical compilation of urges which result in the natural happiness of an individual to be directly related to the happiness of another, there is nothing.

The debate over whether love is more than biochemistry has been ongoing for more than a century, so I have my doubts it will be settled here!

The question of whether non-human species are capable of emotion, including love, gets similarly heated.

A really good book on this topic is The Third Chimpanzee, by Jared Diamond, who is more famous for his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel".  In the book Diamond examines how a 2% difference in genetics between humans and chimps has led to such profound differences, including our capacity for art and our inclination towards genocide.

Among the interesting take home messages I found is that the human female is responsible for much of our species' uniqueness, and thus civilization.  I've found that most women agree with that statement, for some reason.   

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
Right... as sentimentality is the ultimate flight from logic (creationism is a close second) it cannot be argued against so I shall not be banging my head against that particular wall.

In a cold, rigid world ruled totally by logic, life would  bite pretty unpleasant, making complete logic illogical. Conundrum!

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:
As for pride at being human... well; the only thing about humanity I can say I'm proud of is the organism's tenacity and versitility within the physical Universe. The creature's capacity for technical advancement and sheer ingenuity is truly astounding.
Just a shame they're all using that quality to slaughter one another. Oh well.
There is nothing else about the human organism that is in the least bit appealing or admirable... besides some of the more outlandish hairstyles of the 1980s.

Yes humanity has done awful things, often more awful than good, but would you rather be a mindless drone ruled by instinct? I'm proud to be human and to be able to use the advantages I have in the best way possible.

 

Originally posted by RobotDevilRox:
I do believe that this used to be a Futurama shippyness thread, am I correct? Then how did we come to discuss human imaginations, emotions, and opointless arguments? It's like the chicken and the egg argument, except with an explanation that is harder to find. I'm not making any sense. I'll shut up now.

I tried... 

 

Originally posted by coldangel_1:

Right... as sentimentality is the ultimate flight from logic (creationism is a close second) it cannot be argued against so I shall not be banging my head against that particular wall.

Sentimentality is indeed a flight from logic. A necessary one, in fact, since humans are not fully logical beings, and cannot force themselves to be fully logical beings. I'd've thought that was obvious. What's your point?

 

There is nothing else about the human organism that is in the least bit appealing or admirable... besides some of the more outlandish hairstyles of the 1980s.

And once again, I must point out your errors. Let us assume for minute that you are not a human, but another species, say, a Kaled. And that I'm a human. Now, I believe I am superior to you. You believe you are superior to me. We both have the right to think in this way. And you know what? As long as we both survive, we would both be true, and equal. However, if you manufacture an army of your metal-encased mutants to wipe out my species, and succeed, you will have by definition proven yourself the superior race. And you know what else? You have the right to do that! All species have the right to do that!

But humans haven't been destroyed. And I highly doubt that any other species arising from this planet will be able to destroy us. I could be wrong, of course. But I personally doubt it. Thusly, we are the superior race on this rock. And if your Daleks want to exterminate my species like I do my fire ants, by all means, let them come. We'll see who's superior.

I could be wrong in my arguments, I admit. Only the omniscient Lord can tell that. But I will protect my species, argue for my species, fight for my species, and if required, die for my species before letting go of my pride; in that I was a part of something that was great, even if only temporarily.

That I belonged to a race that not only could take care of itself, but other endangered species as well. One that had morals that encouraged it to do so. A species that, although easily confused and panicked, had individuals which could see their full place in the universe, currently a small pinprick on the head of a safety pin sealing a box of nothing within an elaborately decorated cupboard of insignificance, but despite this realized that one did not have to let it rest at that. That there was always room for improvement. A race in which sensible persons went on long elucidating rants upon cynics who saw themselves as nothings of aught potential.

 

Originally posted by JustNibblin':

In the book Diamond examines how a 2% difference in genetics between humans and chimps has led to such profound differences

I'd've thought that was obvious as well. Let me put it this way...

 

Object A:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to reflect their safety and happiness.

 

Object B:

We hold these truths not to be self-evident, That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to reflect their safety and happiness.

The difference in meaning between object A and object B is 100%. The difference in words (aka, genetics) is less than 1%.

 

Originally posted by RobotDevilRox:

I do believe that this used to be a Futurama shippyness thread, am I correct? Then how did we come to discuss human imaginations, emotions, and opointless arguments? It's like the chicken and the egg argument, except with an explanation that is harder to find. I'm not making any sense. I'll shut up now.

Do some historical research. Discussion involving human imaginations and emotions is what the thread was originally created for. And there are never any pointless arguments in it.

Eventually all of you will finally realize that I am a cynic. But I don't let cold, fleeting facts determine my worldview. I favor a cushy armchair by a fire any day. Preferably snuggling with a lady (Winks at fryandlemon). I put common sense into facts, and see how it is they relate to actual visible occurrences. I'm a romantic as well, to be sure. The romantic in me believes that every person ought to be bright and intelligent, spending their nights in a cushy armchair by a fire, snuggling with their spouse/significant other/consort/FWB while the snow of reality flutters peacefully throughout the alley outside. The cynic in me knows how to operate a snowplough. Together, they make me an individual who can build snowmen during the day and enjoy a shared cup of hot cocoa at night.

So get back to your shoveling, coldangel. I'll give you ten quid to do my driveway.

 

Originally posted by Professor Zoidy:
Loving the pics. All those times Leela had her hand or arm near Fry and I failed to notice.

Me too. It seems the series is littered with images of one embracing the other or just giving a quick, gentle touch.  Maybe it's just my desire to see them together clouding my judgement but their body language seems be speaking volumes.

Darwinian evolution would seem to suggest the egg came first, seeing as an ancestoral bird, not quite a chicken yet, would have - through a random genetic quirk - laid the first egg which hatched a modern chicken analogue.

   

Originally posted by coldangel_1:

Darwinian evolution would seem to suggest the egg came first, seeing as an ancestoral bird, not quite a chicken yet, would have - through a random genetic quirk - laid the first egg which hatched a modern chicken analogue.

Technically, the chicken is the egg†, but I'll not apply human standards to the bird right now.

To really get anywhere from this argument, we would fist have to define what it is we mean by egg. Certainly, long before there were chickens, there were fish eggs. I was defining egg as any fertile egg that a chicken lays. Thus, if an animal-which-is-not-a-chicken lays an egg, that egg is not a egg. It could hatch into a chicken, of course. The chicken would then be first.

You probably define egg as a fertile egg which has the genetic material of a chicken, in which case, you are right.


† By which I mean fertilized chiken egg.


 

Originally posted by Cyberphobia:

And I haven't been here in a few months and you're still on the same Shipper thread as we were on when I left. Disappointing!

Can't you see I'm working on it?   

Define 'feelings'.

Goshdarnit, I'll make an emotional analyst out of you yet!

Keep in mind this isnt my work, since I cannot draw squat    but I feel this is still worthy of being on this thread. So, here ya go...

by satoita

I know that, you know that. Try getting Leela to admit it.

Unfortunately, I dont have a colored version, but that shouldn't stop some kind PEELer from making this into a colored version. 

Smexy picture there WAVer   I know I've seen the coloured version of that pic before, but I couldn't find it now on Deviantart.... 

So here's a different coloured one instead:

 

As for the chicken vs. egg argument, i'd say the egg makes the most sense with the Darwin evolution theory.

Am um..
 

Preferably snuggling with a lady (Winks at fryandlemon).

I don't really know what to say to that....

 

Originally posted by jle1993:
I think thats a hint for you to do it Coldy

That's a hint for anyone to do it, actually. Also, its nice to know there is a colored version out there. Now I just need to find it....    Yeah, Deviantart.com is where I found it. Anything I find that's top notch I usually save to my PC so when I'm feeling down, I look at pics and/or fanfics like that and feel much better lol.

btw, I looked hard, and I cannot seem to find a colored version of it >_<