DarkShadow Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 This question has always puzzled me . I already have an opinion of my own but i would love to see some input from you guys :) There are some people who confuse asexuals with celibate persons . And i don`t have anything against celibates. But i was just wondering : since we treat human beings as they have free-will , why must every behaviour , action , and preference should be tied down to biological factors ? Even though asexuality may be genetic , i don`t judge people who choose to be celibate because religion , for example, or any other "unnatural " reason . The same issue is with homosexuality . Most lesbians and gays justify their orientation saying that it`s natural/ genetic ( born this way ), and i fully agree that there are natural causes for that. But i don`t think that`s how we should look at it ! Natural or unnatural , disease or no-disease, homosexuals should have the freedom to live their lives as they want. You don`t shape human rights and freedom according to biological aspects , unless you`re a fascist ! That`s why i support even transgender people and don`t belive in gender roles either .I don`t think a person should behave or act in a certain way according to their anatomy . I think every person should have the right to choose for themselves what gender identity and role to have , and not be pushed by society / religion. Simply put : i think we are our minds, not our bodies Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Minds/souls, temporarily trapped in meat prisons... some of which are more unpleasant to the inmate than others (e.g., when gender dysphoria is at play). I don't believe in free will, though. Link to post Share on other sites
DarkShadow Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 I`m an atheist so i don`t believe in these souls that you are speaking of Link to post Share on other sites
freewill-gray Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I completely agree with you! :D Link to post Share on other sites
Perseus Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I believe we are both because a lot of time and detail when into creating both and life with one and not the other would either suck or be impossible. Link to post Share on other sites
LenaLuthor Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Our minds. Link to post Share on other sites
Prairie Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The same issue is with homosexuality . Most lesbians and gays justify their orientation saying that it`s natural/ genetic ( born this way ), and i fully agree that there are natural causes for that. But i don`t think that`s how we should look at it ! Same here. That someone wants to do something, and it's not harming others, is enough justification for it, and for accepting the person, or at least tolerating it (if it bothers someone else, that someone else has a personal problem they should look at). I notice this a lot in all sorts of interactions with people. They often couch their decisions in terms of external forcing circumstances rather than personal choice, as if the latter isn't justified. But with me, that someone doesn't want to do something is one of the strongest reasons to not press them to do it. Someone not wanting to do something comes from their very core being and its desire for growth. But i was just wondering : since we treat human beings as they have free-will , why must every behaviour , action , and preference should be tied down to biological factors ? The way I see it, we have free-will, everything is deterministic, and we could easily just be our bodies. These might all three seem contradictory, but to me they only seem such when each isn't understood fully. Daniel Dennett has a great book Elbow Room on the subject of free-will, and how the varieties worth wanting aren't ruled out by a deterministic universe. That is, being very sensitive to tiny differences around us, being able to take into account our needs and select a course, based on experience, that best meets them, being effectively-unpredictable to others (except in the ways that we are approximately rational, where we naturally will be predictable since rationality is that way). The other piece is descriptions at different abstraction levels, and how something can be happening at the molecular/chemical level, and at the biological level (cells, hormones, chemical messages), and at the psyche level (needs, ideas, experience, perceptions, thoughts). So yeah, maybe we are entirely biological, but that means that not just some things, but everything that's going on in our mind is also going on at some physical level, though it be like a super-intricate marbled painting all mixed up. This shoulnd't reduce us to something "merely" biological; it should show that our thinking of "merely" biological is uninspired and that it is actually far more beautiful and deep than it's seen as. /rant Link to post Share on other sites
SithLord Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I am confused as to your argument. You're saying why bother separating asexuals from celibate people because both groups have no sex? Because that's just messed up. But maybe you mean something else by immediately going off on not minding when people are celibate? Otherwise, you're making a HUGE leap in claiming asexuality = natural celibacy. Also, you say people justify their sexualities, and I don't understand your deal with that. Society tells us certain things are expected of us and if we can't easily do those things it's often noticed. Justifying why we can't do those things or do those things well/naturally then is understandable because humans like to know why and how we're different. It's normal to explain why you don't fit the norm, so to speak. I know you're making the whole mind-over-matter argument and all that jazz, but I don't think what you say is a good argument for it. Even though yes, I believe people should be able to be who they want to be and not what they're expected to be. ON THAT NOTE: Asexuality doesn't mean we're celibate, can't have kids, don't want kinds, etc. You equating the two is pretty offensive to me. As well as the implication that we shouldn't explore what makes us different biologically: genetics, hormones, and so on. Humans feel the need to explore and to learn, especially about ourselves, so me wanting to know WHY I'm not a heterosexual shouldn't be a bad thing, and to me I feel that that's what you're getting at. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Our minds can affect our physicality and vice versa. But that has nothing to do with orientation. Link to post Share on other sites
poisonrose Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 ON THAT NOTE: Asexuality doesn't mean we're celibate, can't have kids, don't want kinds, etc. You equating the two is pretty offensive to me. As well as the implication that we shouldn't explore what makes us different biologically: genetics, hormones, and so on. Humans feel the need to explore and to learn, especially about ourselves, so me wanting to know WHY I'm not a heterosexual shouldn't be a bad thing, and to me I feel that that's what you're getting at. There's one thing, everyone always says that it should be investigated to find out why some people aren't heterosexual but perhaps the answer to the question lies in reversing it... perhaps the answer to the question of why people aren't heterosexual is the answer to the question of why people are heterosexual? TBH I think that if people trying to investigate any genetic or other links to sexuality would have more look by investigating, at least at first, the reasons behind people being heterosexual. If they did it this way then first they would have a larger population to study, they's be less likely to face claims of discrimination or homophobia and the results would mean they know where to start looking when investigation other sexualities. Anyway besides that, I believe that it's a mixture of the two that makes us asexual but it's the mind that really matters as the body is merely temporary like everything but conscience is potentially eternal. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I`m an atheist so i don`t believe in these souls that you are speaking of *shrug* I find it logically baffling when someone states a belief in minds that aren't 100% informed by brains (i.e., by bio-organical bodily structures) but says they don't believe in souls, which are pretty much that exact same thing. But it's not like atheism has to be rational, when other religions aren't, either. ;) Link to post Share on other sites
DarkShadow Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 I am confused as to your argument. You're saying why bother separating asexuals from celibate people because both groups have no sex? Because that's just messed up. But maybe you mean something else by immediately going off on not minding when people are celibate? Otherwise, you're making a HUGE leap in claiming asexuality = natural celibacy. Also, you say people justify their sexualities, and I don't understand your deal with that. Society tells us certain things are expected of us and if we can't easily do those things it's often noticed. Justifying why we can't do those things or do those things well/naturally then is understandable because humans like to know why and how we're different. It's normal to explain why you don't fit the norm, so to speak. No, i`m not comparing asexuality with celibacy, It`s okay to have a word to describe your situation ( in this case being ace ) and i don`t mind that at all . i`m just saying that you don`t need to justify every thing you do . Like, for example, i can`t justify why i like a certain type of food or a hobby ( it may have some bio-deterministic explenation) but in reality all that i can say is that i enjoy it , and that`s that ! Also, normality is a very abstract concept just like morality . Link to post Share on other sites
RoninA Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I have to confess having a little trouble with the point of your question. It seems to me that anybody confusing asexuality with celibacy would be, broadly speaking, confusing cause and effect. Is your question about choice? When you talk about free will and biological imperatives, are you saying that you don't understand why people are less willing to accept personal choices about, to use your example, celibacy? In your later response, you say normality is an abstract concept. I think I'd be inclined to argue that it's more likely a statistical exercise... Link to post Share on other sites
kawaiipanda Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 We are both, and it is impossible to separate the two. I think the reason gay people describe their orientation in biological terms is that too many people tell them that it is solely a choice, and therefore unnatural and wrong. Straight people's bodies are wired to desire the opposite sex, but they also exercise choice when they decide who to sleep with (or not). The real problem is that people treat normality as a question of right and wrong, instead of what position you are on a bell curve. Link to post Share on other sites
Prairie Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I think the reason gay people describe their orientation in biological terms is that too many people tell them that it is solely a choice, and therefore unnatural and wrong. I think OP's point might be that calling these things unnatural and wrong is an error and that providing a justification is just indulging the error rather than calling it out, "This is not harmful to others, therefore it needs no justification and you have no grounds for attacking." Link to post Share on other sites
ThePaperRose Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 We are both, and it is impossible to separate the two. I agree with this. Although I like to think that human consciousness is more than just a bunch of chemicals in the brain Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Minds/souls, temporarily trapped in meat prisons That Link to post Share on other sites
poisonrose Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I agree with the Op that normality is abstract but it's mostly abstract because of how many definitions of it there are, for example normality could be seen as being statistically one of the majority (in England that means white British and non-Christian according to statistics). Other people may see normality as adhering to social norms and values and others may see it as not doing things they consider strange like becoming a hermit. So in that sense normality is a very abstract thing as it firstly depends on which definition is being used and also because if the definition of majority is being used then what is to say that the majority is in fact normal? So that's why I believe normality is abstract. Link to post Share on other sites
Hooded_Crow Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I believe we are our thought patterns, temperament and memories. These, to my very prosaic mind, come from the many many electric currents in our brains, our hormones and other body-related things. So I don't believe that the two are separable. However, if there was a way to digitally copy a person's thought patterns and memories into a machine or another body, then I would be more than happy saying it is the same person in another body. Maybe there is such a way. Maybe that's what the soul is >_> I believe brain creates souls, in a sense. Link to post Share on other sites
WünderBâhr Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Moved to the Philosophy, Politics and Science forum. Bipolar Bear Asexual Q&A Mod Link to post Share on other sites
Barylambda Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I feel like I am an extraterrestrial/otherworldly entity trapped in a human body. So, for me, I am whatever the heck is inside my body. Link to post Share on other sites
daveb Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I don't think you can separate mind and body because the mind arises from the physical body in that it's simply a manifestation of the physical structures and processes of the body (I mean the entire physical being). In a way it's a false dichotomy; very similar to the dichotomy between physical and mental illnesses, for example. At least that's my opinion based on very little knowledge of any pertinent fields of knowledge or science. :) Link to post Share on other sites
Dantius Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Of course a "soul" exists. I am not my body. I am here, in control of this body, using it to interact with the universe. I know this because I am here to know it, to make this realisation, given the ability to acknowledge the simple fact that I am here, aware of the experiences of this body. Of course I exist, for a "soul" is what I am. If there was no "soul" (which I consider to be an actual person, regardless of personality, memory, thought, emotion, body, etc...), then *I* would not be here. Of course, this biological machine could potentiall still be here, but whether or not it will continue to function as it does now is unknown to me. I always find it strange when anyone declares that the "soul" is a fantasy. I know for a fact that I am not my body, otherwise I simply would not be here, using ths body to tell everyone that. Do you mean to tell me that you are not real? That you truly are little more than an organic machine? With no more worth than a toaster (no offence)? I have theorised that these people may be right, that they truly are, essentially, empty vessels, operating on programming alone, without any pilot, and that I (whether I am alone or part of a few who are actually real) am something completely different. That this body that communicates to them is, for all intents and purposes, "possessed" by me. Of course, I cannot make certain of that, and shall therefore not take the risk. I shall continue to assume that all my fellow organic lifeforms are as "present" in their bodies as I am, for whatever purpose is unknown to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Robin L Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Some people would call what you call a soul a conscious. Soul may imply that it can leave the physical body it inhabits, which not everyone believes in. Link to post Share on other sites
Dantius Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Some people would call what you call a soul a conscious. Soul may imply that it can leave the physical body it inhabits, which not everyone believes in. Not necessarily. A soul can still theoretically be bound to a body and die along with it. The soul (or at least my concept of it) is simply a person. As I said, I am a soul, sitting in this body. Though I do agree, one could call it consciousness, but that does not mean it would be a purely physical thing. Even today, scientists do not understand the full details of consciousness, so perhaps the specifics are something we should simply wait on until we know more. Much like an afterlife, we shall simply have to wait and see. Link to post Share on other sites
fujipaisley Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I think we are our minds, the mind drives the body. I don't believe that the mind is free though or at least not more so than the most advanced form of computation (where the most advanced computation is purely theoretical, not something we have yet succeeded in creating). I'm also not sure that we can really every hope to conceptualise the mind given that the tool we use when trying to do so (once again the mind) is no more powerful. Link to post Share on other sites
binary suns Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 our mind doesnt exist without our body. our body can't exist without the world. we are all the universe. individuality is only an observation. there is no true seperation of beings. Link to post Share on other sites
Artistofnoname Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Souls is the most logical in my opinion. Its the only part of us that is eternal and indivisible. Link to post Share on other sites
jimerman Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 the thing that blows my mind is that every eight years all the cells in your body are replaced, so if you think about it, you have already died several times and you are a completely different person in a literal manner. Link to post Share on other sites
Artistofnoname Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 the thing that blows my mind is that every eight years all the cells in your body are replaced, so if you think about it, you have already died several times and you are a completely different person in a literal manner. I heard that recently in the forth book of the Unwind Dystology.Seems like a logical occurance and I guess it would make sense because your cells are constantly being replaced and rebuilding. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.