Could This Be Love? (A Phenotypic Expression)

Hypnotic gene that steals the soul,
Love- but a child of phenotypic expression.

The Human Shell- a body born of design from the genes constructed to seduce a would be prey, like a siren. While the owner of the body might not know what affect they product in another, they unlock a secret need a hypnotic control to remove their prey’s defense. Using what Dawkins call a ‘Phenotype’. Could Love be nothing more then an Attack mechanism of genes on other genes to control them and bend them to do their bidding?

I spoke vaguely in more technical terms so as to product response, if any, from those who had some knowledge of Dawkins amongst others work in the field of Gene / Phenotype manipulation of fellow genes, organisms and environments.

I’ve been reading a book called ‘The Extended Phenotype’ by Richard Dawkins that had me really pissed off, in a good way… I think??? While it’s a very good book it had me thing way to much about Game Theory and ESS (Evolutionary Stable Systems, i.e. Put basically this is any system that interacts with itself, like an ecosystem but it’s an ecosystem that is stable and will not destroy itself. It’s a system that’s in balance, i.e. self-sustaining). In Game Theory it’s where a group of agents of different strategies have all be averaged out to the point were there is the right number of each for the system to stay stable. (e.g. one such system could be made up of 50% Kind people, but aware of cheats, 15% Gullible People, 35% Chancers (Opportunist that will cheat). There’s not just one Evolutionary Stable System, but many, the only difference is what proportion that each possible strategy uses and the environment that the system operates in, this also affects the proportions. Meaning if resources are very hard to come by then it’s more then lightly that a Kind but aware of cheats will have a high percentage- say 90%, 2% Gullible, 8% Chancers. Chancers still exist only because there are so many others that are willing to be kind short-term, but after they see the cheat stop helping, but the cheats always have new prays as there are so many who will initially be kind.

So an agent’s strategy must beat its opponent’s, but if its opponent strategy is the same it will more then lightly work with itself to the advantage of both. (i.e. People who can group together and work with each other in trust will beat others that don’t work with each order. Kind of like hunting packs, the pack works with each other against the common pray). The long and the short of it is Reciprocal Altruism, or what we call common sense, but it’s only common because all the other strategies have been weeded out though the process of Survival of the Fittest and have been proven to be redundant.

I’m unsure of how much people know about Genes, but a Phenotype is the effect the Gene gives off on the external world. So the Gene would be the computer program, while the User would only ever see the programs effect, which is what the Phenotype is, not the code, that’s the gene. So the end product of the code is the Phenotype, it’s a little ethereal in its concept until you think about it for a bit and then it makes perfect sense. Example, no one Gene does anything; it’s always a couple of them interacting that makes up an effect (a phenotype). So what we call the gene for eye colour is more then one gene, it’s the combined effect of many. That’s the reason why it can be hard to change just a single attribute of a person, because it’s not as simple as changing a single gene. The body itself is an ESS made up of genes that work with each other. Look at all the different forms of bacteria or other micro-organism that make up the human person, it a synergy of entities created from our Genes Phenotypes that cause us to be what we are. The more you examine what we are the less definite our substance becomes, such is the nature of synergy.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way on to what’s pissing me off! Well just a little more explaining. Also I hope I haven’t pissed you off and you’ve stopped reading.

You know the way all animals use different forms of deception to survive. Butterflies with the different patterns on their wings; Leopards with their spots for camouflage, etc. Then there’s the way animals use there physical size for intimidation. Like the way aggravated cats arc their backs to make themselves look bigger so its physical presence will scare ways its opponent. Or it could be used in humans to intimidate others into doing what they don’t want to do. Meaning one imposes their will on another using the threat of some from of force. While this will work, it’s mostly a short-term fix, as the one that is intimidated will look for ways of revenge and try to get even. Therefore long term it’s a self destructive strategy, well at least only a small proportion of the people can use this strategy as it has high mortality rate so isn’t necessarily the most effective when it comes to Survival of the Fittest. Fear, that’s just one survival strategy to get others to do your bidding. What if there was a strategy were others would do what you wanted without the side affect of revenge, or it costing you any of your outwardly obtained resources, i.e. money, food. What if you could some how make people do what you wanted because they actually wanted to do it for you. What if we call that strategy Love? Genes who Phenotype product a physical form that cause others to become “weak at the knees” or “possessed by passion”, “those who would give up anything for Love.” It’s similar to taking a drug, but this drug is injected through our eyes (if you’ve read Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash you’ll get the idea, it’s like the virus in that book). A physical form that affects another person’s nervous system and unwittingly to them makes them more open to suggestions from the person who they are attracted to. Long term this is a good strategy (assuming the other person doesn’t end up heart-broken and decides to kill the object of its affection) as if both people love each other, both will work for the common good, synergistically speaking two become one, blah, blah, blah. Its follows the main selection criteria, beats other strategy directly or indirectly as it’s less risky, while if the strategy comes into play against itself it will work together for the good of both.

But now, what happens to people who are or become immune to that strategy? Where physical appearance or the idea of Love is no longer desirable? What if love no longer moves you to help another and you just see it as the crewless form of deception. As I think I’ve become that way. Whether it’s caused by my Gene’s, which I doubt, or more lightly my Memes (i.e. what makes me think and Ideas I have formed from past experiences and cogitation) I think I’m just becoming the ultimate cynic! I have to be careful how I say this, as I’m not a woman hate or bear ill will as I know we’re all in the exact same position, the only different is I now have an acquit awareness of something that others possible don’t… so with that said… Now when I look at women I don’t see her physical beauty, only a physical form that has more or less ability to manipulate me to do its will. Personally I find this a dark outlook on love as people all believe it to be something wonderful. Yet I see it simply as two groups of Genes whose physical forms have successfully coercing each other into doing what it wants. Love isn’t something special, it just a product of mutual manipulation and that heavenly feeling is just like any additive drug, if it didn’t feel good you wouldn’t do it! If sex was like going to the dentist contraception would never have been invented. Love is an Evolutionary Stable Strategy; that is, it works with itself to propagate itself.

Have we been genetically selected over many generations to feel like a half a being without Love? Because love is a good strategy when it comes to creating new offspring and rearing said children for the cycle to be repeated?

So this has gotten me pissed off. The usual contemplating existence and its nature, then struggling to re-appropriate the newly believed facts while getting ride of that shit I was taught by the mindless masses. Its amazing how new knowledge changes the shape of the world around us; showing how little we really know about it’s true form and the fact that the world I personally live in is completely different to anybody else’s, as the perceived world is only a by-product of a conscious mind, which swirls around in there with all the order crap we pickup along the way.

So to quickly recap what I’m saying…

It’s like intimidation but instead of using fear to frighten it has the opposite effect, using the equivalent of an aphrodisiac so to speak to control and coerce. Animals have used size and colours to intimidate as a defence mechanism against other animals. Why not create another form of intimidation that uses a more sootel approach to lower the defences and not only that but makes the pray more vulnerable and open to carrying out the other animals will. This would be an obvious advantage for aiding in survival, as in survival of the fittest terms, whenever your will is opposed successfully you have lost a battle of fittest and been proved weaker. Therefore the ultimate genes should win every battle, in theory anyway.

It’s already accepted that genes produce indicators to show other genes that they are fit and healthy specimens (this is one form of Phenotype). What if there was a mutation that played off this already existent effect to overload the detecting genes (kind of like a buffer overflow error that computer virus writers use) they exaggerate their own features to become a super healthy gene. What would be normal notification of healthy genes would become a massive signal pointing out a group of superior genes to a level that causes the viewers own gene mechanisms to become retarded in operational efficiency and create an overriding, but an artificial need to be with those genes. This having two forms in particular, Lust and Love.

Any comments?

I suspect that I may have missed the point, but I’ll dive in anyway.

I would say that your reading has influenced you to embrace a cynical attitude. Do beautiful women use the influence of their beauty to get their way? Of course, happens all the time. Do men become stupid when they see a beautiful woman? Sure.

If you focus your attention on the potentially manipulative influence of the beauty then of course you are going to discover evidence of it.

But you gotta take into account intentions. Does the woman with the beauty willfully use her influence? Is she actively trying to manipulate men?

A person whom you fancy can influence you in ways of which they are unaware.

Now when you’re thirteen and you notice somebody beautiful and you get an erection, obviously your biology has the upper hand. But we live and we learn.

I cannot buy that any particular gene is an entity capable of computation, much less direction. Being organic, that implies something not far from a level of consciousness

We should be no more mad that (whatever) sex attracts us when we are wanting companionship/passion/sex/whatever, than we are mad that (whatever) food attracts us when we are hungry, or (whatever) beverage attracts us when we are thirsty. It is not the food’s fault if we develop an eating disorder.

Sheâ„¢

Could there be times when the manufacturer or perhaps the purveyor of the food might have some measure of responsibility for our eating disorders?

Only if they slip in something which contributes to an eating disorder, something (including its effects) of which we were not aware, and only if they advertise to people with or susceptible to a disorder, especially those who are trying to avoid the product due to its effects, in such a way that those people can not avoid the advertising… the equivalent of intentionally seducing a known recovering sex addict.

Pax Vitae, I think that instead of getting pissed off, just be empowered and appreciate this new view of how things operate. Whereas others fall mindlessly in love, you can deliberately experience everything that goes into love knowing damn well you are following a lure by your own will, a lure which makes itself a lure because you, too, are a lure. Instead of attracting you so that it may devour you (as is found in nature – and we are part of nature), it attracts you because it is part of the phenotype which came about to aid procreation – but because you know all of this, you can ‘corrupt’ or ‘intercept’ the phenotype for your own purposes (within the limits of the natural universe, ofcourse).

You can control mentally how you react physically (to a certain degree)… you can either starve yourself to death in defiance of your programming, or you can eat, drink, and be merry, knowing you were programmed for just that sort of thing, but it is you who chooses whether or not to enjoy it… It’s like inheriting a bunch of money whether you wanted it or not, and either giving it all away just because you don’t like acquiring things against your will, or deciding how best to enjoy it.

Hi Pax,

I’d first make the observation that physical attraction isn’t love.

Also, romantic love might be the stuff of films and magazines, but across the whole of our lives, eros is perhaps the most ephemeral of all of the many ways that humans love. Ludus, pragma, agape and storge form the basis of our most enduring loves; few of which are based upon physical attraction. If physical attraction is a mechanism evolved to control my passions, given that I never was attracted to all but one of those persons whom I presently love, then I’d have to say that it’s failed rather miserably.

Regards,
Michael

Yeah, I think it is important for people to realize what physical beauty is.

Its a combination of two factors, physical symmetry and society influences on specific characteristics.

When you look at someone that you find physically attractive, all that is happening is an instinct is going off saying that you have potentially found a prime candidate for procreation. And from that stems the desire to have sex. What affects this instinct the most is if the person being viewed has symmetrical features or not, and some societal influences(such as hair color, breast size, ect…).

Physical attraction has nothing to do with love. All it has to do with is making sure the species keeps producing itself.

Quite right. But for some it begins this way, a physical lust. But lust doesn’t care for the other person its more about satisfying our own need. Part of the full belly empty balls syndrome. But lust doesn’t really care about the object lusted after while love does. That’s why Love is trickier, as we feel more obliging towards the object of our love and we can take pleasure from helping it.

I’m not pissed at the truth, but the fact I’ve been mislead by others. But not only that, the fact it took me so long to get an understanding of how it works from Mathematical perspective and from a rational point of view, seeing it for what it is. I’m annoyed at my own ignorance and taking so long in getting around to questioning something so fundamental.

That’s part of the dilemma. Love is something our society sees as mystical, magical and sometimes the greatest expression of humanity, in the form of selfless Love. But if the view is reversed then love becomes subservience, as to help the object of our Love brings pleasure, but to reject it causes pain. This pleasure or pain is never felt by the object of affection, only by the one in love. Therefore the object that can make others love it, will have a great power, as it will neither be swayed by pleasure or pain; it’s an unmoved mover of others. But here’s the problem, because this is such a powerful ability (like nuclear weapons) everybody must have this ability otherwise there would be an imbalance of power. Chances are in our past this happened, those that couldn’t make others love them went extinction. Like today, if you can’t find somebody to love you, you don’t have children, ergo you don’t have offspring and your gene line is terminated. Therefore Love is a necessity to the existence of our gene line. It’s the immortal Genes that make it unto our children and live on.

This leads me to believe that as a species we’ll either do one of two things.
A: Become more and more beautiful.
B: Start to ignore the drive of love that is encoded on our genes.

A is the most lightly, as B is counter productive. i.e. it means you’re more lightly not to have children therefore the gene line is terminated. So every time a gene line that’s immune to love pops into exists it pops straight back out, as it’s not in its nature to procreate because of love.

Again this is another thing that pisses me off, but its madness to try to deny what we are! It’s like a woman that is born a man? is there such a thing. People who get gender reassignment because they believe that they are actually of the other sex. Well if they were actually of the other sex they wouldn’t need gender reassignment??? (and no this is not what has me pissed off at my genes before anyone makes a smart comment. ) It’s more a case of trying to find unlimited freedom in the confines of a predestine existence, not from a universal perspective but an individual one. Meaning it’s my genes that shaped my body therefore they shape how others will initial see me. Of course then we have the mind (again that was shaped by my genes) which has the ability, over time, to change first impression, well to an extent.

To be free one must not be limited by the weakness in oneself, either in their genes or knowledge base. Genes enslave because we can only be what they let use be. While knowledge confines the choices we have, as we need to understand things before we can make good choices. We are free in a choice, but we might know there is another option, that if we did know we could chose. Therefore we are limited by our own ignorance. I’m trying to defeat both! But ultimately this is madness as I can’t ever win I can only make so much progress before I reach my gene’s physical limits. Its like a 100meter running who knows no matter how much training he does he will never be quicker then 10.2 seconds, he’s reach his physical limit, all that’s left for him is frustration if he continues to try and break this limit.

To true, love is the alternative to rape. Polemarchus, I remember you writing before, “How many of us wouldn’t be here today, other for the rape of past mothers?” Lust initial lead to rape, morality has stopped this to a very large extent in some societies. But it could maybe seen as the oldest form of impetuses for procreation, which has been replaced by Love. In this case love could be seen as the lesser of two evils, as at least both parties take pleasure out of love. This would also be the most lightly way option B above could continue to exist. It would rape rather then love the other person or pretend to love until it had sown its oats. So it would seem that Love is a better strategy then rape in the game of gene survival (it would be interesting to see how many marry, not for love, but out of other interests). Therefore Love would just be a refinement on Lust, an enhanced survival strategy. Like I’ve said in the previous posts, the best strategies are the ones what work with each other when they compete in the wild, which Love certainty does.

But it’s funny that we’re no better then the donkey following the carrot on the stick! All because love is a demon encoded into our genes; that possess our soul and drags use towards procreation despite of our intellect. (Again, no I don’t have a problem with sex its enjoyable) The problem lies in the fact it’s something I’m programmed to do. It’s like Cryton (Red Dwarf) or Commander Data trying to change their programming. While theirs is just a sub-routine that can easily be changed, mine’s hard coded into my gene. I’m greatly amused that a computer is freer in this regard than a human. Gene’s are not changeable, but computer code is infinitely thus. Haha, maybe I don’t need gender reassignment, but I’m a computer born in a man’s body! What would it be like to be pure intellect??? Maybe I was wrong about computer, I’m a Vulcan born into the wrong species and on the wrong plant! Or I’m part of a gene line that’s forever popping in and out of existence.

umm… is there something a little more basic than this about the same topic? maybe i can get my feet wet reading something simple and come back to this some other day. its interesting and id love to learn about it i just dont know where to start.

For an introduction to Genes and Phenotypes read ‘The Selfish Gene (2nd edition)’, by Richard Dawkins. The two big things you’ll get out of this book are Memes and Phenotypes, plus a proper understanding of how genes evolve. If you’re up for it ‘The Extended Phenotype’ again by Richard Dawkins is worth reading. But be warned, while the Extended Phenotype is a great book, it’s a VERY heavy read if your not zoologist or biologist and this is his targeted audience. Though it’s possible to read it, it requires some effort and has glossary at the back which explains the terms unknown to most outside of his field.

‘Non-zero’, by Robert Wright is another book that’s very good. But it goes more in the direction of technology as a unifying force then discussing Gene / Phenotype Theory. But it does get into Game Theory, which is the driving force behind natural selection. But he explains it without getting into all the maths behind it. (John Nash, the nutter from ‘A Beautifully Mind’ did a lot of great work in game theory). There are tons of maths books on game theory, but all are a fairly heavy read if you’re not into maths. That’s where ‘Non-zero’ is so strong you’ll get a good idea of Game Theory with all the equations.

The order I would recommend is Selfish Gene, Non-zero, and Extended Phenotype. That should keep you busy for the second half of summer

Its semantics, phenotypes exist as a product of genes. While the genes themselves don’t change directly under the influence of other phenotypes the gene’s own phenotype does. Therefore if the phenotype is the body, the body was constructed by the gene and the gene is still in the body, so whatever happens to the body also happens to the gene. So manipulation in this sense isn’t modification but being made to do things that could possible undermine the gene’s original goal. Therefore the gene is manipulated by proxy and only modified when it comes time to create children. Then the gene line becomes merged with the other gene line and at this point both genotypes are modified physically in the production of a new genotype in the child.

I’m afraid it’s you who are wrong. Love does make us do things for people that we mightn’t otherwise do. Love can start out as lust, a desire to have another person, but to have this person means we’ll have to do something to obtain them (the alternative is just to take what we want ending in rape, sex being the most fundamental thing to all normal creatures). To achieve sex means we need to attract this other person’s interest, i.e. create the felling of Lust or Love in them also. Love Lust is a weapon to create offspring, or restated from the Gene’s perspective, continue the gene line.

Now where’s the problem?

Yes we do feel it for another person; it’s their phenotype that is affecting ours. We are being manipulated! That’s the point of the phenotype of love, to force us to multiple. It’s to the advantage of the genes for it to be able to product something that is loveable, as the genes will get to be reincarnated (so to speak) in the form of offspring. No offspring no genes! Therefore it pays to have genes that Love and can be Loved.

Poetic licence, these are two lines from a poem I posted in the Creative Writing section. Our phenotypes are an expression of our genes, so what our phenotypes do is done by proxy for our genes. If our phenotype can hypnotise, this is only because our genes created them in the first place.

Well said! that’s my point exactly! We have the latent ability to love, but it requires somebody to bring it out of us.

Again this is what I’m saying. Love is such a powerful tool in manipulation that almost everybody has it now. It’s become a part of the common gene pool like arms, legs, ability to speak, etc. A gene’s world is just one big arms race and getting left behind means extinction for that gene line. It must keep up with the current technologies to dominate, otherwise it will be dominated and then defeated. Love is an essential part of any genes arsenal to make sure it makes it into its next existence, in the form of children.

Love is only a binder, so long as both parties love each other! If only one of the people involved is in love then the other has a very distinct advantage to manipulate the other person into doing their bidding. We’ve all seen movies where the beautiful ‘fem fatal’ gets some unsuspecting “lover” to kill her ex-husband or some other contrived plotline. So it is in the world of genes.

I’m built with two purposes in mind: Survival and Procreation! Everything from a gene’s perspective should aid in these causes. If it doesn’t or is somehow harmful then the genes involved will die out and be replaced by others that succeed at those goals. Nowadays this has evolved and it’s up to our Memes, which are in essence phenotypes, but phenotypes so important that they deserve there own categorisation and separate study.

So following this hypothesis eventually the human population will be made up of the most successful manipulators.

No it’s not!

Basically, Lamarckian is about “Use or Disuse” of some element of the body or other phenotypic expression. Meaning if an individual uses their muscles a lot before they have children then the child’s muscles will be stronger because of the fact that the parent used their muscles more, i.e. through inheritance. Likewise if the parent didn’t use their muscles the child would be weaker. That’s the fundamentals of Lamarckian theory, the phenotypes that are used get enhanced in the offspring, while those disused will deteriorate. This is wrong! and its not what I said!!!

I said the human body is an instrument of attraction! (Plus many other things, a phenotype) The phenotypic consequence is that phenotype selects another phenotype of a different gene-line to combine with. Then they mate this is a process of meiosis / mitosis and mutation, nothing Lamarckian about that, just the normal run of the mill Darwinism. Chromosomes from both parents battle it out for a locus (a position) in the new gene-line. Its up to the Phenotype to select a partner, therefore the only genes that can compete are the two gene-lines selected by each phenotype thereby the phenotype selects the gene’s that will compete during the creation of the new combined mutated gene-line.

Or for a really simple example of Phenotypes changing genes. Genetically modified foods! That’s a direct product of a Phenotype modifying a gene-line without our gene’s ever touching the plants. We simple force genetic selection to achieve a desired phenotype i.e. more fruit, greater resident to bugs, etc. That is Memes (a phenotype) modifying and selecting genes. We in effect rewrite the rules of survival of the fittest based off our own desired affect. So phenotypes can directly modified gene-lines! Thanks to the wonders of genetic science.

If you’re taking about some transcendental higher Purpose, true. Otherwise, No you’re wrong. Genes through its phenotype can come to have a purpose, but an intelligent process didn’t initial purposely select its purpose, random mutation and evolution did. Meaning, if the purpose of a gene is not to survive and reproduce then its goes extinct. Therefore by definition a gene is a type of chemical process that can only continued to exist if it is able to survive long enough to reproduce itself. If a gene doesn’t follow this purpose it will cess to exist and no longer be a gene. The very fact I can choose to purposely reply to your post tells me genes through their phenotype can select a rudimentary purpose, but can lack the grander transcendental one.

Purpose; God; are those no go words in philosophy, as they are so general as to almost lack a consistent meaning and are more like vague ideas.

Love is a human quality and to humans Love increases the chances of gene survival. Lust is the sex; Love like you said can help keep a family unit together increasing survival chances.

It’s all-relative, is 5 foot tall??? To a 4 foot person yes, to a 6 foot person no. So to people today, yes they’ll be most lightly more successful manipulators. But through new mutation better ones will come into existence. It would be like the average height changing to 8 foot and the people in the future thinking that we were all tiny! When at the time we didn’t consider ourselves to be.

What if we call the strategy capitalism? Sorry, had to do that… procede

Oh! Bingo! In America, our food is loaded full of appetite stimulants…

Dude, you put way too much emphasis into genes. I believe that love has very little to do with genes. Maybe evolution, but certainly not genes. Love is the driving force of nature. I pledge my allegiance first to the nature (and the universe), next to man (and woman). As such I try not to defy the force of love if it is true. There is a big difference between lust and love. Lust is the force of procreation. That is the big chemical wand of evolution. Love is unity. The nature of life is unity, and life expresses this in many ways. Love is one of them. Love is meant to show the beauty of unity. Those who get hurt by love are those who defy it. Separation is always painful. Love is the power of symbiosis, two organisms developing side by side and complementing the developments of one another.

Also, you take the natural selection thing to extremes. It’s really not a very solid theory. The theory is based upon random mutations caused by competition with other life forms. There is little evidence for this, and if you do the math, you know that it would’ve been impossible for the earth to develop in such a way. On top of that, most random mutations prove to be harmful rather then productive. More likely, DNA recombination, and symbiogenesis were the forces of evolution that has lead to the complex development of our global ecosystem. It is a known fact that bacteria trade genes instantly by contact. Also, when threatened they spill their DNA into their environment. Most biologists today believe that the complex ecosystem of our planet was developed from a web of bacteria who used DNA recombination as a creative source of planetary evolution. Random mutations only played a very small part in that. The development of more complex organisms is hypothesized to be the result of symbiogenesis between bacteria species to create more complex organisms. Even now, bacteria live in our bodies, spilling genetic information, trading genes with other bacteria, that we then inherit from them. This is thought to be the main source of new genes, not random mutations. Modern evidence is more and more starting to force biologists to discard the theory of natural selection through competition for one that makes better sense: natural evolution through cooperation (i.e. symbiosis)

If you look at the web of life which regulates our planet, it is not a web in which constant conflict operates it. It is a web in which constant cooperation between species operates it and makes it functional. If it were dominating other species through conflicts that decided how well a species was adapted to the environment, then if you removed all the other species it would thrive best. That of course is rediculous. If you removed all other species except one, that species would die almost instantaneously. So it is not conflict that keeps us alive, but cooperation.

That is the problem with humanity these days. We are at war with nature. We think conflict keeps us strong, while in truth it only makes us weaker. Love is a side effect of the unity of life as expressed through human emotional experience. It is not some ironic controll mechanism invented for the purpose of certain chemical messages to dominate the planet. I noticed that you tend to look at love as being forced to succumb to the will of another. If that is what you are doing, that is not love. Love is the cooperation between your will, and the will of another. If you view love as a force that is controlling you, you will always have nothing but painful experiences from it, as it will then be a force of separation rather then unity. If you look at love as a force of cooperation between you and another organism that you admire and wish to be with, you will generally have a positive experience from it, and see the beauty in it. That is the problem most people have with love. They try to fight it. If you see it as some intruding force that overcomes your will, you will never be able to have a positive experience from it.

What a pessimistic view of life! Evolution has no purpose = life is meaningless. Without evolution you wouldn’t be here. So since you are here, and you believe evolution to be meanigless, you must also think that your life is meaningless. What a terrible outlook on life! Everyone breathing on this planet is alive my friend, but not everyone truly lives. By the way, in my purpose of love thread I noticed you made the mistake of referring to me as lamarckian. The only thing that Lamarck and I agree on is the fact that evolution did form the planet. That is where the similarity ends… See above post.

I think this is where you can agree to disagree Alien. Both you and Pax have beliefs that cannot be proven(maybe in your heads). Pax’s theories are based on weak scientific evidence, and yours is based strongly on faith in your own beliefs(which I have no problem with that - can respect a human willing to stand by their principles). However, there needs to be no one saying each other is wrong hehe.

Anyways. On a side note, I do not think it is a sad thing to think that life is meaningless. There is no purpose for life, it is just a consequence of the existence of all the matter we are comprised of. On the other hand, I do agree that living your life like its meaningless is sad. I give a personal purpose to my life, although I do realize that this purpose is an illusion, it’s still a purpose that I live for, and will enjoy till I die.