|
Boundless
Stranger
Registered: 01/04/06
Posts: 38
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
|
If you like to sow, then sow, just be mindful to pick good seeds.
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Boundless]
#7674061 - 11/24/07 10:12 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Jeez dude, not everything is an agenda.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 10:21 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: psyka]
#7674103 - 11/24/07 10:34 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyka said: Typical "selfish" propaganda.
Have you ever cooked dinner for someone and wanted them to enjoy what you cooked?
They are both present in all moments, in different degree's.
Both what? Both persons or what are you talking about? And what does this have to do with what we were discussing?
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Why exactly would you do it though? Isn't you being happy is necessarily the result of this, no matter what the order of events? I argue that the sacrificer being happy is a (time transcending?) consequence because it isn't tied into the reasoning itself.
This other situation sort of reflects this same thing: If you sacrificed your existence for another, Of course you wouldn't ever actually feel accomplished, because your dead.
Of course you wouldn't feel accomplished after. I thought it was already all too obvious to point out. But maybe you forgot that there's a before death moment, the moment which coincides with the moment when you (for example) decide to give your life for the sake of somebody else. You make that decision with that feeling of accomplishment. I don't understand where I lost you here. Become honest about your intentions and leave guilt aside. Yes, guilt, because it is that feeling of guilt that we're not good enough (that we can't be like some darn hero or Jesus or who know what else) that's making us delude ourselves into thinking that some our acts might be selfless. It is not so and in the same time being selfless in not wrong. It's just reality.
Quote:
You might argue that in your head, the notion that you are going to do this in the future makes you content before you do it, and thats why you do it. In this case, if you were doing it for your own well being, how could you ever actually go through with it though? It is one thing to say "I am not afraid of death", and another to actually die.
I am sorry but what you just said simply doesn't have any logic. Your thinking: If I were to die for somebody and I would find in that something to make me feel good about myself, respectable or you name it, I don't see how I would do it because I would still know that we're talking about MY death happening here. May I ask you... as opposed to what? As opposed to dying for someone without feeling like a hero for example? And this would make you accept your own death more easily?  Something's not right in this chain of reasoning. 
Quote:
It can't be argued that the act of true self sacrifice (Not for divine points) in the present moment could ever be done for one's own well being, because this would be effectively annihilating one's own well being.
Huh? I thought I made it clear enough that it is all about priorities. For some it is far more important to know that the one they could save will be ok, than to remain alive. We are not talking here about what one might consider the well being of a species (surviving) or other commonly accepted values of the like. We are talking about subjective well being. What makes one happier. How many choices in your life were guided by this commonly accepted definition of that's good did you make? 
Quote:
Though it might feel heroic to think that "I one day might sacrifice myself", in between this point in time, and the point where you have to actually go through with it, you must realize that this is going to end your existence, and so it is NOT for your own well being. I argue that nobody would ever rationally go through with this if they were doing it for their self, because the act ends their self.
Again, we're not talking about "rational" (though I would argue enough about this term too) choices. We're talking about personal, emotional, maybe even on impulse choices that people make. Which are as valid as any other, at least in the context of how they feel about it (i.e. accomplished).
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: shakercee] 1
#7674152 - 11/24/07 10:56 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shakercee said: Here is an example of how selflessness can go horribly wrong.
A 26-year-old man in my city, Chennai, commited suicide so that his younger brother, who is partially blind, can see again. The dead man was ill and in bed, and he loved his brother so much.
But his act of love was of no use.
The doctors had previously informed the family that it may not be possible for the younger brother to regain his sight even through retinal replacement as the connecting nerves were damaged.
What's more, the dead man eyes could not be used for anyone else because the body was taken to the hospital beyond the stipulated time to remove the eyes for a transplant.
No, this might be an example of being not so intelligent.  However, I don't consider it a selfless act, for all the reasons that I stated above.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
my point was, that in self sacrifice, sometime in between the point that you decide you are going to go through with it, and when you finally do it, your going to have to come to terms with your non-existance, so how could you do this selfishly?
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
For some it is far more important to know that the one they could save will be ok, than to remain alive.
This can easily be percieved as selflessness.
Quote:
Again, we're not talking about "rational" (though I would argue enough about this term too) choices.
But I am. Who says that emotions and instincts are not rational? All rationalities eventually tie back to our will of life, which is completely emotional and instinctual. Our rationalities are completely based upon these states.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 11:09 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Huh?  Because exactly of that feeling that you're doing the right thing, this is the inflation of the self. Everything we do, we do it with the perspective of our own death, even we choose to acknowledge it or not. What should be the difference in this case?
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
Huh?  Because exactly of that feeling that you're doing the right thing
This does not make sense to me...
Quote:
this is the inflation of the self.
Quote:
Everything we do, we do it with the perspective of our own death, even we choose to acknowledge it or not. What should be the difference in this case?
I am arguing there should be a difference? In what case? I assure you that your posts are equally incomprehensable as mine
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 11:20 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
|
Dude, you say that you can't do a selfless act when it comes to picking your own death. You've been saying that for quite a while, each time in a different form but the argument was the same. Each time I answered you on how this happens and you still as the same question. This discussion is leading nowhere in this manner.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Ok forget all that.
Quote:
For some it is far more important to know that the one they could save will be ok, than to remain alive.
You seem to think that when they do this, they necessarily do it in order to feel good, therefore this, like all action is selfish.
Edited by daytripper23 (11/24/07 11:58 AM)
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
Again:
Quote:
The dualistic state of self and other is completely valid. I cannot logically argue with this. I agree that all action, concept, or sensation is inextricably tied to the self, and should be realized as such.
In this sense everything is like you say, selfish. I understood that this logic is flawless from the get go.
But it is up to us to possibly question what the true self actually is. Perhaps the true concept of self, confounds any previously determined secular notion of it. I think thats all I can really say.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma
"In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma (sometimes abbreviated PD) is a type of non-zero-sum game in which two players may each "cooperate" with or "defect" (i.e. betray) the other player. In this game, as in all game theory, the only concern of each individual player ("prisoner") is maximizing his/her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff. The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution—that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the dilemma."
Sorry, but I'm too damn lazy to right my own summary. The Prisoner's Dilemma has been used by evolutionary theorists to explain the evolution of morality. In the repeated version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, which is closer to real-life, one of the best strategies is to cooperate on the first turn and then mimic your opponents decision for the remainder of the turns. (Basically, cooperate but take revenge.)
There are several major flaws with this dilemma. The first is that the prisoners are not in communication, they are not able to discuss the situation with one another,neither did they discuss anything before as there was no real situation they were involved in.
The second is that anyone with half a brain knows never to trust a cop, and would know that it is never in thier best interest to rat. If they were doing anything illegal with another person, they would also hopefully have a significant degree of trust in the other person and believe that thier friend would have thier back. It is in one's own self interest to be a trustworthy friend and accomplice. Being a weak little rat would damage one's social relationships, so even if they didn't end up in the slammer they would come home to nothing but animosity and distrust which, depending on the severity of the friend's punishment, would cause them to have lost all social support.
There are also a number of real life examples of how cooperation did not help the rats, and holding true and keeping thier mouth shut benefitted the other defendants. See the "Green Scare". The rats went down for years, and the others either got off clean, or if they were sentenced got similar terms as the rats. Those who held strong also have a great deal more support and the trust of thier communities.
Also, people playing this game don't have any real stakes, it's a game. Games are about winning and there are no consequences from the way one chooses to play. It isn't real life. I can be competitive and dominating in a game, but in real life I strongly believe that it is in my own best interest to have trusting, cooperative relationships. I am satisfied and fulfilled by relating to others.
|
shakercee
Atheistic Mystic



Registered: 04/08/07
Posts: 606
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7674338 - 11/24/07 12:12 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Let's hope that there is no one like Jigsaw (Saw movies) for the whom the line between a game and real life blurs.
-------------------- Pray, v.: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce Medical science has confirmed what the male world has known intuitively for millenia: that scratching your ass is a great aid to complex thinking. Its God's responsibility to forgive the terrorist organizations such as Jaish, Lashkar etc. Its our responsibility to arrange the meeting between them and god." - Indian Armed Forces "Hey Monkey!! Get Funky" - Tarzan and Jane
|
shakercee
Atheistic Mystic



Registered: 04/08/07
Posts: 606
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
No, this might be an example of being not so intelligent. 
Yep, he let his emotions get the better of reason. Unfortunately an outlook that is all too common in societies. Some dubious men become national heroes.
-------------------- Pray, v.: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy - Ambrose Bierce Medical science has confirmed what the male world has known intuitively for millenia: that scratching your ass is a great aid to complex thinking. Its God's responsibility to forgive the terrorist organizations such as Jaish, Lashkar etc. Its our responsibility to arrange the meeting between them and god." - Indian Armed Forces "Hey Monkey!! Get Funky" - Tarzan and Jane
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: Merkin]
#7674646 - 11/24/07 01:53 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Merkin said: the arrogance and the generalizations in this forum are ridiculous 
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:
Merkin said: We are born selfish. The genes within us are selfish.
Having "selfish genes" does not necessarily make us selfish.
BAHAhahahAHAHAHAAa
you're kidding right? i suggest the first thing you can do is understand the meaning of the word "gene".
Do you understand the concept of a "selfish gene" or are you ethologically illiterate? Either you're refering to the concept of "selfish genes" or a gene for selfishness. Regardless, in both cases, you are incorrect.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7674660 - 11/24/07 01:59 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
NiamhNyx said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_dilemma
"In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma (sometimes abbreviated PD) is a type of non-zero-sum game in which two players may each "cooperate" with or "defect" (i.e. betray) the other player. In this game, as in all game theory, the only concern of each individual player ("prisoner") is maximizing his/her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff. The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution—that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the dilemma."
Sorry, but I'm too damn lazy to right my own summary. The Prisoner's Dilemma has been used by evolutionary theorists to explain the evolution of morality. In the repeated version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, which is closer to real-life, one of the best strategies is to cooperate on the first turn and then mimic your opponents decision for the remainder of the turns. (Basically, cooperate but take revenge.)
There are several major flaws with this dilemma. The first is that the prisoners are not in communication, they are not able to discuss the situation with one another,neither did they discuss anything before as there was no real situation they were involved in.
The second is that anyone with half a brain knows never to trust a cop, and would know that it is never in thier best interest to rat. If they were doing anything illegal with another person, they would also hopefully have a significant degree of trust in the other person and believe that thier friend would have thier back. It is in one's own self interest to be a trustworthy friend and accomplice. Being a weak little rat would damage one's social relationships, so even if they didn't end up in the slammer they would come home to nothing but animosity and distrust which, depending on the severity of the friend's punishment, would cause them to have lost all social support.
There are also a number of real life examples of how cooperation did not help the rats, and holding true and keeping thier mouth shut benefitted the other defendants. See the "Green Scare". The rats went down for years, and the others either got off clean, or if they were sentenced got similar terms as the rats. Those who held strong also have a great deal more support and the trust of thier communities.
Also, people playing this game don't have any real stakes, it's a game. Games are about winning and there are no consequences from the way one chooses to play. It isn't real life. I can be competitive and dominating in a game, but in real life I strongly believe that it is in my own best interest to have trusting, cooperative relationships. I am satisfied and fulfilled by relating to others.
This all seems non-sequitur.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Social Interaction [Re: shakercee]
#7674673 - 11/24/07 02:02 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shakercee said:
Quote:
No, this might be an example of being not so intelligent. 
Yep, he let his emotions get the better of reason. Unfortunately an outlook that is all too common in societies. Some dubious men become national heroes.
Yup, that's pretty much the history of mankind.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
mushroomplume
Stranger

Registered: 10/16/06
Posts: 1,395
Last seen: 14 years, 19 days
|
|
My take on this whole shabang is this:
Selflessness is an illusion and so is the idea that all of our actions are motivated by what is in our best interest.
I do not think there is another and I do not think there is an I. I think there is only one. When we give to others, we are actually giving to ourselves.
None of us look at a leaf and think that it is driven by its self-interest. What it gains, the plant does, the well-being of the plant dictates the well-being of leaf.
I think we are all tied together and the idea of helping "another" or doing something for "us" is just a misconception. Whenever we start viewing the world in terms of us and others, it just doesn't add up logically, we are inherently tied together.
That's just my two cents.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
This all seems non-sequitur.
No it doesn't. There is a difference between playing a game and living life. There are no consequences to the manner in which on plays a game, there are consequences in the manner in which one lives life. Therefore, the strategy one may choose when playing the "prisoner's dilemma" will likely be different than the strategy chosen in an authentic situation.
|
|