Solving consciousness

[_Z_]

interesting thread spiderbaby

i think deconstructing the self is useful to help understand it, but we are not those parts. there is no such thing as the ego the conscious and the subconscious [as they are interacting all the time]. such things are descriptions of aspects of the entire.

there are only two things; ‘you’ and the environment. some aspects of the human form are actually as much a part of the environment as what is exterior to it. ...and there is no absolute distinction between what is external and what is internal.

to start with i imagine the universality of everything as ‘the single thought that lasts forever’ whereby all our usual distinctions are cast aside leaving no edges to anything - not physical nor mental, everything is in everything.

Z

[DrFree]

Hi, Juantoo3,

I've been rereading, and was struck by the following remarks.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The abrogation of responsibility means there is no choice, you are gonna do what your biology makes you do. That's all there is to it. You have no mind of your own to choose, your body chemistry has already made your fate. If you are "lucky," you will be born with a shrewd and calculating mind adept at theft and a suitable body by which you will amass great wealth; and if you are less fortunate, you will remain a hostage to your circumstances from which you cannot arise until your lineage suffers extinction.

While I can concede that civilization has its dark moments with government and institutional religion, it is difficult to deny the overwhelming evolutionary benefit these [choice and responsibility?] have provided our species.

Though I tend to agree, I want to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

First, the evolutionary benefits would accrue from the illusion of responsible choice. Real free will is not required. As long as people think of themselves as free and responsible, even if their thoughts and actions result from deterministic biological processes, they will create the institutions and practices that are needed for civilization.

There is some scientific evidence for this, which was reported by Doug Hofstadter in his "MetaMagical Themas" in Scientific American so many years ago that I can't point to a date. As I remember, a computer simulation was created based on the so-called Prisoner's Dilemma, you know, the one in which prisoners are offered a deal if they inform on their confederates. The rules of the deal are as follows:

• If Prisoner A Betrays and Prisoner B Stays Silent, then Prisoner A goes free Prisoner B serves ten years.
• If Prisoner B Betrays and Prisoner A Stays Silent, then Prisoner B goes free Prisoner A serves ten years.
• If they both stay silent, then each serves six months.
• If they both betray, they each serve five years.

Wikipedia offers the following analysis:

The dilemma arises when one assumes that both prisoners only care about minimizing their own jail terms. Each prisoner has two options: to cooperate with his accomplice and stay quiet, or to defect from their implied pact and betray his accomplice in return for a lighter sentence. The outcome of each choice depends on the choice of the accomplice, but each prisoner must choose without knowing what his accomplice has chosen.

When the computer simulation was run, there was a variety of behavior: some betrayed, some stayed silent. Those that betrayed in the initial runs tended to minimize their own jail times.

Hofstadter reported that as the simulation was run over and over, with prisoner's allowed to remember previous occurrences, two interesting phenomena emerged:

1. Over time the winning strategy (i.e., the one that minimized jail time) was to punish those that betrayed you once, i.e., to betray them the next time you were involved together. Both total forgiveness and holding grudges increased your total jail time.
2. Over time the occurrence of betrayal diminished. Apparently prisoner's stopped having dealings with those that betrayed.

What is interesting is that a simple computing system, with only a deterministic program without intensionality, real choice, or responsibility evolved to have a taboo against betrayal. This raises interesting questions about morality and the evolution of systems.

Namiste.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Z!

Thank you for your contribution.

Originally Posted by Z

i think deconstructing the self is useful to help understand it, but we are not those parts. there is no such thing as the ego the conscious and the subconscious [as they are interacting all the time]. such things are descriptions of aspects of the entire.

there are only two things; ‘you’ and the environment. some aspects of the human form are actually as much a part of the environment as what is exterior to it. ...and there is no absolute distinction between what is external and what is internal.

On some level I can see this, and even think I might agree. Going back for a moment to my automobile analogy, tearing apart the carburetor to figure out what makes it tick doesn’t mean the carburetor is the sum of a car’s existence. Yet, the carburetor is an integral part without which the sum total cannot properly function.

Originally Posted by Z

to start with i imagine the universality of everything as ‘the single thought that lasts forever’ whereby all our usual distinctions are cast aside leaving no edges to anything - not physical nor mental, everything is in everything.

I think there are analogies to this in quantum physics, at least as I understand (very layman’s terms), such as spooky action at a distance.
________________________________________

Kindest Regards, DrFree!

Thank you for your contribution as well.

Originally Posted by DrFree

I want to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

First, the evolutionary benefits would accrue from the illusion of responsible choice. Real free will is not required. As long as people think of themselves as free and responsible, even if their thoughts and actions result from deterministic biological processes, they will create the institutions and practices that are needed for civilization.

I haven’t given a great deal of thought to this yet, but these are my reactive observations:

Can “free will” be truly classed as free will if it is deterministic? It seems to me there is a gross oxymoronic conflation of terms in so doing.

If free will is not free will, then what is left is predestination. Even if argued as biological imperative, the end result seems to me the same…there is no “choice” to our behavior, therefore there is no “good” nor “bad” behavior. Whether we ascribe that predestination to G-d or genetics, we are subservient slaves to our preordained destiny in spite of any delusion of will on our part. By extension therefore, there are no criminal behaviors, and we are right back to eugenics and survival of the ones who kick butt and make babies, everyone else is pork chops.

Originally Posted by DrFree

There is some scientific evidence for this, which was reported by Doug Hofstadter in his "MetaMagical Themas" in Scientific American so many years ago that I can't point to a date. As I remember, a computer simulation was created based on the so-called Prisoner's Dilemma, you know, the one in which prisoners are offered a deal if they inform on their confederates. The rules of the deal are as follows:

When the computer simulation was run, there was a variety of behavior: some betrayed, some stayed silent. Those that betrayed in the initial runs tended to minimize their own jail times.

I have seen reference to this game before, although I thank you immensely for the added info. I am not certain I understand the implications you are attributing here. Even as a Devil’s advocate, I fail to understand how this game supports predestiny over free will.

Originally Posted by DrFree

Hofstadter reported that as the simulation was run over and over, with prisoner's allowed to remember previous occurrences, two interesting phenomena emerged:
1. Over time the winning strategy (i.e., the one that minimized jail time) was to punish those that betrayed you once, i.e., to betray them the next time you were involved together. Both total forgiveness and holding grudges increased your total jail time.
2. Over time the occurrence of betrayal diminished. Apparently prisoner's stopped having dealings with those that betrayed.
What is interesting is that a simple computing system, with only a deterministic program without intensionality, real choice, or responsibility evolved to have a taboo against betrayal. This raises interesting questions about morality and the evolution of systems.

In all fairness to Dr. Hofstadter, what I find with mathematical models and simulations when applied to human behavior is that there are always wildcards, exceptions to the rule. The human component is notoriously fickle and subject to wild extremes in real world situations. Bear in mind, this is a game, and games have rules. Players agree to the rules, or they will find they are not playing the game for very long. Life, on the other hand, is considerably more than a simple game or mathematical model. There are variables, too many variables to count, and wildcards out the wazoo. Just when one thinks they have a workable model, I guarantee some test subject will come along to skew the numbers. It is human nature.

My own mother, G-d love her, would do some of the most bizarre things that I would never have thought to do in a million years. And always when I would question her about such things she would invariably have some justification in her own mind that validated her behavior. No matter how frivolous, no matter how silly, no matter how illogical, no matter how absurd, if she could justify her behavior she found a way. And the thing is, she is not the only by far that I have had the pleasure of knowing in my lifetime that did things in this manner.

Once one “gets the hang” of a game like prisoner’s dilemma (indeed, you point to this in your reference), then there is an unspoken accomplice between the players as they become “experienced” in who to trust and who not to. The problem when applied to real world situations is that one may not get that second chance to apply that experience to the same person again. Life is a series of first encounters. What one learns in a chance encounter with a minor legal misdemeanor may or may not apply to the next chance encounter with an entirely different individual who engages one in a minor fraud. How do the lessons learned from being stolen from apply to becoming a thief? How do the lessons learned from being lied to apply to becoming a liar? There seem to me too many variables to give distinct encompassing answers, and by experience I would also think there are other mitigating factors still, the “situational ethics” always relevant in real world examples. Black is black and white is white, except when there are varying shades of grey. Lying is always wrong, except when it is the lesser evil,…or it gets one out of trouble, …or can be used to justify a creative appropriation of unearned and undeserved wealth, …or? Murder is always wrong…except when the other guy is trying to murder you. Ask anybody, and wrong is wrong, always. Observe somebody, and find out that what is wrong for someone else may not always be wrong for that person being observed. A person who earnestly believes lying is wrong will, by prevailing mathematical percentages, lie at times when deemed necessary or convenient. What is there to make me think that a murderer does not reason in a similar manner? Murder is wrong, except when it is justified, or convenient, or solves another problem or hassle…or when a person is overwhelmed with passionate emotion.

Quick add on concerning the beginning of this paragraph is the variable of contrition...what if one is truly penitent of previous behavior? Is he to be forgiven, or still not to be trusted regardless?

In short, I just don’t get how the prisoner’s dilemma game can in any way definitively provide any devil’s advocacy in terms of free will versus predestination. There are simply too many variables at work in the human psyche, and not all are in any way rational or logical, and most I would hazard a guess are purely emotional ploys for justification in spite of rational reasonability and logic.

BTW, what does any of this have to do with consciousness? (Just thought I’d check and see if you’re paying attention.)

[bob x]

what does any of this have to do with consciousness?

If we haven't fallen asleep by the end of your post, we're still conscious!

[juantoo3]

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

I have been mulling over this comment:

Originally Posted by bob x

He (Freud) was totally ignorant of hormones and neurotransmitters, for no fault of his other than being born too soon.
What he had to say on the particular topic at hand was, "Trying to convince a homosexual to change into a heterosexual has as much prospect of success as the reverse."

Sorry to keep coming back to my automobile analogy, but it seems the easiest way to respond to this. A person need not understand the chemical properties of hydrocarbons such as gasoline ( Howstuffworks "How Gasoline Works" ) or how an internal combustion engine operates in order to observe that automobiles are indeed capable of running down the road in a controlled manner. Yes, Freud’s efforts predate the current “understanding” (if understanding is a truly appropriate word to use) as the field of neuro chemicals is brand new and still wide open to interpretation. No wonder Freud predates all of the efforts to confirm, build upon or deny his work considering he is perhaps *the* founding pioneer in comprehending how the human mind works. His focus was not so much on the “how” (neurochemicals and other associated matters) as the the fact that human psychology *exists* and that it works roughly in accord with Freud’s ideation of the Id, Ego and SuperEgo. The Id seems to me to associate roughly with the subconscious (and it is here that behaviorism focuses its efforts), the Ego which I see as the conscious and the SuperEgo which I see as the conscience.

According to Freud, the mind can be divided into two main parts:
1. The conscious mind includes everything that we are aware of. This is the aspect of our mental processing that we can think and talk about rationally. A part of this includes our memory, which is not always part of consciousness but can be retrieved easily at any time and brought into our awareness. Freud called this ordinary memory the preconscious.
2. The unconscious mind is a reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that outside of our conscious awareness. Most of the contents of the unconscious are unacceptable or unpleasant, such as feelings of pain, anxiety, or conflict. According to Freud, the unconscious continues to influence our behavior and experience, even though we are unaware of these underlying influences.

Psychoanalytic Theory - The Conscious and Unconscious Mind
Freud’s work was far too early to try to convince anybody to change from anything into anything else, he was too busy trying to figure out and explain what kinds of anythings existed. Freud’s ignorance of neurochemicals has no bearing on the fact that he was attempting for the first time in modern western history to comprehend how the human mind works. Indeed, the whole field of psychoanalysis is split into two distinct camps. Psychiatry deals with the human mind in part with medication (chemistry), while the field of psychology is quite content to plod along with simple words (counseling) to deal with the human mind. Both camps have a fair degree of success, with neither method being clearly superior to the other.

In other words, Freud’s ignorance of neurochemicals is a red herring argument.
As a professor, I’m certain you knew that. You were just testing me, right?

[bob x]

Freud’s work was far too early to try to convince anybody to change from anything into anything else, he was too busy trying to figure out and explain what kinds of anythings existed.

And one of the things he figured out is that no such thing as a "choice" about one's sexual orientation exists.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Originally Posted by bob x

And one of the things he figured out is that no such thing as a "choice" about one's sexual orientation exists.

What an interesting claim. I would be very happy to look over the reference in *Freud's* work to support this.

[bob x]

See the succinct quote from him in post #29.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Originally Posted by bob x

See the succinct quote from him in post #29.

"Trying to convince a homosexual to change into a heterosexual has as much prospect of success as the reverse."

I googled this with Freud’s name attached and after cruising through more than one hundred hits I could find nothing to attribute this to Freud except your comment on CR. I did find these gems, though, enjoy!

Oedipal stage in the formation of sexuality:
In the normal development the little boy's progress towards heterosexuality, he must pass, as
Freud says [. . .], through the stage of the “positive” Oedipus, a homoerotic identification
with his father, a position of effeminized subordination to the father, as a condition of
finding a model for his own heterosexual role. [. . .] There results from this scheme a
surprising neutralization of polarities: heterosexuality in the male…presupposes a
homosexual phase as the condition of its normal possibility. (quoted in Sedgwick 23)
For most men (especially those that do not have strong male role models to help create a normative
heterosexuality), homosocial relationships with other men reinforce this missing “homosexual
phase.” Homosocial behavior, then, allows men to strengthen their heterosexuality by participating
in activities that might seem homoerotic, like rolling around half-naked, locked with another man in
a sweaty embrace during a fight. By participating without becoming homosexual, the men of Fight
Club strengthen the gender roles that had remained incomplete for so long. But, as Pleck and Clare
65
would point out, without the original father figure, this homosocial behavior merely serves as a
substitute and still leads to confused gender roles and hyper-masculinity, all symptoms the members
of Fight Club display in their powerless lives.

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/..._200705_ma.pdf

Oedipal conflict. Hill explains this conflict in Adorno’s essay:
Drawing from Freud’s castration complex, Adorno maintains, in classical Freudian terms,
that a healthy negotiation with the power of the father means that ‘a considerable amount of
aggressiveness must be developed in the child against the authority which prevents him from
having his first, but nonetheless his most important satisfactions. . . . By means of
identification he takes the unattackable authority into himself. The authority now turns into
his super-ego’. (113)
But problems occur in forming one’s self-identity when the father is weak or nonexistent, which
challenges the child’s ability to identify with the father or to become conditioned to be a proper
member of society. In those cases, the confused boy instead looks “for a stronger, more powerful
father . . . as it is furnished by fascist imagery” (Adorno quoted in Hill 114). For Hill, Adorno’s
argument adequately explains totalitarian politics’ strong pull among powerless men.

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/..._200705_ma.pdf

The Brain: the Most Important Sex Organ
In terms of modern technology, an examination of the brain under the microscope and with electrical probes reveals a mass of "transistors" with the consistency of custard pudding. The numbers of electrical devices is 30,000,000,000 or 300,000,000,000,000--depending on how you count them--enough to do the job. We are not interested in details here. What is important is that there is a structure with which we think, and that a change in that structure can change the way we think.
The proof lies in the observations that someone who has had a bad bump on the head--or who has a tumor, or a blood clot, or a broken blood vessel in their head--will think differently. They may simply have trouble talking or in moving an arm or a leg. They may collect guns and ammunition, go to the top of a tower and start shooting people--as happened in Texas when a young man had a brain tumor. They may lose the ability to plan their lives, as happened to thousands of people after well-meaning but ignorant physicians cut away the frontal lobes of their brains. They may have hallucinations--perhaps of pink elephants coming down the freeway--after exposing their brains to exotic chemicals such as LSD, mercury, or alcohol.
SOFT MINDS--HARD BRAINS. In the world of computers, the mind of the computer is called "soft-ware. " The software is the information fed into the computer by the user. The software tells the computer how to use its abilities in a specific situation. The soft-ware is rightly so called for it can easily be changed and even destroyed. One slip by the operator of a computer can erase from the computer all its soft-ware. The "hard-ware" of the computer can only be destroyed by use of a hammer, wrench, or soldering-iron.
The human brain's instincts are limited and the mind, the software, is often dominant. People can disrupt the best-laid plans of their instincts. People have the ability to generate their own soft-ware to a remarkable degree. Left alone, a computer is helpless. Left alone, a human can get into all sorts of trouble,
The ability of humans to get into trouble is usually over- weighed by their ability to get themselves out of trouble. It is this ability which makes us think we are the masters of our destiny. We are conceited in thinking we are not limited by our hard-ware: the nearly-rigid structures of our brains. It is only when the brain is damaged that we admit the limitations on our ability to control our own thinking and learning.
In reality we should recognize three divisions: instinct, learning, and thinking. The instincts are built-in plans. Learning is the collecting of information; including what to do about instincts and perhaps how to think. Thinking is the use of instincts and information to solve problems. –emphasis mine, jt3
It is an instinct to shiver when cold. It is good thinking to go indoors, where one has learned there is warmth. It is instinct for a young man to approach a young woman, and good thinking not to approach too fast, having learned that such creatures have instinctive piercing screams and have learned hard slaps.
The overlapping of these descriptions of the activity of our brain is the result of the plasticity of our brain. The brain is easily pushed out of shape, or into better shape. And some brains are different from other brains.
The distinction among instinct, learning, and thinking is not always easy to see.
Is there any innate difference between the brains of boys and the brains of girls? We must decide. The learning and thinking of human beings obscure any such difference. Let us look at the baby rats in the Scientific American for some clues. Besides rats, let us go up the scale of animal complexity and examine the behavior of guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, or monkeys. Let us consider also our own experiences with household pets and farm animals. Universally, we find certain differences.
One of the principal differences we find between boys and girls is that little girls are "nice" and little boys are "troublesome." Males play more roughly. This could be learned by human boys and girls at a very early age, but the tendency is also so widespread among animals as to suggest that the difference is innate. This is not to say that all girls are less aggressive than all boys. It is only that on the average there seems to be a difference.
In addition to such behavior differences as degrees of aggressiveness, patterns of play, and mating, there are also certain behavior patterns associated with nesting and child care. Male and female animals have distinctive behavior patterns.
Parents and teachers know that little girls seem to start learning school things faster than do boys. This may be just because the boys are too busy being troublesome. Observation and tests of very young children suggest that there are real differences in learning ability, on the average. It is 'also reported that boys are less sensitive. to electric shock during their first days of life. Boys also tend to be superior on maze tests, but girls are far superior in verbal ability. Six times as many boys as girls have congenital language problems. It is claimed that girls build basically different kinds of structures with blocks and that girls adapt to novelty more quickly than boys, an aspect of earlier, faster learning.
One of the differences between men and women is that men have a supply of male hormone. It is well known that a castrated dog, cat, bull, or stallion becomes less aggressive than the intact animal. It has been proven that this is due to a lack of the male hormone. On the other hand, human boys and girls from the age of three months to about twelve years have no detectable difference in hormones. In spite of this the little boys pull puppy-dog's tails and disrupt the nursery school classroom if given the chance. Little girls are sugar and spice and everything nice, usually. Their brains seem to differ.
Let us go back to the white rats for some more clues. The male and female rat must cooperate to propagate their species. The male must approach the female. The female must not run away or bite the male. It does no good for them to reverse their roles or their postures. The system only works one way: the male behind the female. Perhaps they could try all combinations until they got it right. They do not. Except for occasional errors, they know what to do. They will do it right even though there was absolutely no chance for them to have learned from observing other rats. The knowledge of how to mate is innate and different for males and females, at least in rats.
As we go up the scale to more intelligent animals, there is a change; instinct is increasingly replaced with learning, and thinking. Nevertheless, even chimpanzee baby boys and baby girls raised in isolation behave in ways that are measurably different. The boys are more likely to engage in rough-and-tumble play--just as for humans-- and the difference could not have been learned.
To tell what is learned and what is innate in humans can be difficult. –emphasis mine, jt3

Homosexuality: Causes and Cures

Edited for space considerations, I encourage any to look at the full text.

[bob x]

The nearest I can find to the quote is in this letter:
Untitled
...By asking me if I a help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible....

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Thank you, that places a better context to Dr. Freud's comment.

Originally Posted by bob x

The nearest I can find to the quote is in this letter:
Untitled
...By asking me if I a help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible....

I do wonder what became of the instigator of this thread, DrFree. After goading me into writing an extended brief on psych 101 with the promise of continued dialogue, it seems (s)he has bailed out of the conversation. I would have appreciated an expansion of his/her ideas regarding the development of consciousness in the human brain. I am still hoping for the claimed dismissal of predestination by chaos theory (or perhaps I misunderstood).

Regarding the development of human sexuality, if one can go by Freud whose research was admittedly preliminary, then one's "preferences" seem to develop at an early stage of childhood, before the age of 5. Using the computer analogy, the genetic predisposition is the hardware; the childhood development by parental exposure (or lack of) is the software installation; and the conscious decisions to follow the Id (or not) are the Ego consciously acting in the place of data input and manipulation. In short, while I can see where one might still maintain that they are "born with" a certain tendency (be it sexual or some other addictive / ritual), I still maintain that tendencies are also, even predominantly, the result of training and indoctrination. What is more, I am convinced as much by personal experience as by psychological research that I am in conscious control of everything I do. I may be limited by the parameters of my equipment, but within those parameters I have a range of scope to behave within. Sexuality in particular probably does have some possible range of expression, but we each develop by choice and personal preference what that final expression ultimately becomes, and that we can, as with any addictive or ritualistic behavior, modify or change if we so will and desire. Obviously if we are comfortable where we are at we will incur no motivation to change. Not that change is impossible, but that a person is unwilling and unmotivated, personal justifications notwithstanding. Is not justification simply another form of expression of will over behavior?

Otherwise a person's will is naught, and responsibility is just a quaint idea for everybody else.

Luv ya, bro, even if you don't think so. I merely happen to disagree with your philosophy. I have put a great deal of effort into explaining why. I don't expect you to agree, but I also see no need to continue on this particular sidetrack.

So, what is your take on the development of consciousness?

[bob x]

Sexuality in particular probably does have some possible range of expression, but we each develop by choice and personal preference what that final expression ultimately becomes, and that we can, as with any addictive or ritualistic behavior, modify or change if we so will and desire

I can (and for the sake of dietary fiber, do) make myself eat lettuce salads, but I can't make myself like them. Similarly, I can (and, if I were a medieval monarch or otherwise had some pressing need to procreate, might well) make myself sleep with a woman, but I can't make myself feel anything for her (and given that, to treat a person in such a way would be, in my understanding, a grave sin). We are not talking about "addictive or ritualistic behavior" (Jesus Christ, why do you always come out with such insulting phrases!) but about the deepest feelings in the human heart.

Luv ya, bro, even if you don't think so. I merely happen to disagree with your philosophy.

To YOU, it is an abstract question of "philosophy", but it is not that at all to ME. You don't "love" me: your love is directed to an imaginary being who does not resemble me in any important way; the being I actually am, you cannot even believe exists, and if you did know me apparently you would despise me.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, BobX!

Originally Posted by bob x

We are not talking about "addictive or ritualistic behavior"

Oh? Then just what would one call the human propensity and overwhelming desire for sex beyond the mere act of procreation, quite unlike virtually all other animals?

Originally Posted by bob x

(Jesus Christ, why do you always come out with such insulting phrases!)

One could equally ask why the automatic presumption of insult where none is intended?

Originally Posted by bob x

but about the deepest feelings in the human heart.

Because emotional attachment is a different issue. I will not attempt to deny the connection between the two, but I feel the emotional attachment is subservient to the desire, whereas it appears you believe the opposite, that the desire is subservient to the attachment. I find it difficult to be attached (certainly difficult to remain attached) to something I cannot have, that remains out of my reach. I might have a flash of attachment, what might be called attraction or lust, but without reciprocation, that desire will wane. True "romantic" love, as I understand it, can only grow out of a mutual attachment, which by default means both parties are attached to each other. Were your partner not attached to you, would you still love that person in the manner you describe, or would you seek to bestow your love on another (gender being irrelevent)?

Originally Posted by bob x

To YOU, it is an abstract question of "philosophy", but it is not that at all to ME. You don't "love" me: your love is directed to an imaginary being who does not resemble me in any important way; the being I actually am, you cannot even believe exists, and if you did know me apparently you would despise me.

It is only abstract in a place such as this, I assure my philosophy has an everyday application throughout my life including all interactions with others. My brotherly love is extended at least initially to everyone, although my romantic love is quietly reserved. I might withdraw some of my love of whatever kind depending on how I am received, I am after all still a work in progress and hold no illusions of perfection. I find it interesting that most likely under other circumstances I would be one of your star pupils (so long as I avoided this topic). Of course, then you would see me face to face and have expressions and tone to go with my words, and you would find that I am sincere. I will leave the shadow of doubt that I might be mistaken, but I am sincere.

[bob x]

Then just what would one call the human propensity and overwhelming desire for sex beyond the mere act of procreation, quite unlike virtually all other animals?

Holy.

Because emotional attachment is a different issue.

No, it's the only issue here. You talk about which aspect is "subservient" to the other (very odd phrasing); they are not separable at all.

Were your partner not attached to you, would you still love that person in the manner you describe, or would you seek to bestow your love on another (gender being irrelevent)?

My deepest love is for a straight guy who cannot love me back, but regards me as a friend. After 33 years my feelings have never changed.

My brotherly love is extended at least initially to everyone

It is extended to your projection of what you think the other people are. You show no willingness to actually deal with the reality of other people.