28 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyThe benefit he receives is his clear conscience, as well as the knowledge that he sent the right message.
In other words, he is being selfless and altruistic.
I thought you were saying nobody can do that?
If that message wasn't important, if that value was without benefit, he wouldn't do it.
28 Jun 17
9 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, judging from my introspection, that often isn't how the human mind works at all, even if it is how your warped mind works
It's how the human mind works.
Close examination reveals this.
Close examination of what? other people's minds? Do you now claim to be a mind reader of those that sacrificed their lives for other people? How does that work? In science, in general, the simplest answers are assumed to be the most likely. Thus, if some people appear to behave just exactly as if they are altruistic, the default assumption should be they generally are until if or when there is good evidence to the contrary. I have yet to see this good evidence to the contrary and I would like you to provide it for us here...
Else, if it looks exactly like a duck, quacks exactly just like a duck, behaves exactly like a duck, unless you have very good reason to believe the contrary, you should assume it is a duck.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by ogbI had a chemistry professor that had a similar mentality. She literally thought we should be studying 24/7 and the notion that we might have other classes to study for seemed foreign to her.
The reason for human life is to advance our knowledge of science. Especially on the quantum level.
All other endeavors are worthless., except for chess.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyClose examination of what? other people's minds? Do you now claim to be a mind reader of those that sacrificed their lives for other people?
No, judging from my introspection, that often isn't how the human mind works at all, even if it is how your warped mind worksClose examination reveals this.
Close examination of what? other people's minds? Do you now claim to be a mind reader of those that sacrificed their lives for other people? How does that work? In science, in general, ...[text shortened]... duck, unless you have very good reason to believe the contrary, you should assume it is a duck.
Let's test your charge of mind reading and see if it holds water.
Are you claiming to be able to read the mind of the person who sacrificed their life for another to live?
In science, in general, the simplest answers are assumed to be the most likely.
Not exactly.
Parsimony is a preferred statement, but truth itself is not contingent upon lack of complexity.
The "most likely" designation is more related to the hypotheses which requires the least amount of assumptions--- again, this doesn't make it irrefutably true, it simply leaves less to be wrong about as it relates to assumption.
The assumption of altruism is, in my mind, the equivalent of relying on a miracle: some unknown factor which cannot be examined or questioned, it just is what it is.
Part of that disconnect for me is the idea that humans are able to do what even their Creator is unable to do, and not only that, but seemingly at random and apparently (at least according to one self-reported hero herein) without thought.
But let's set the first of that disconnect aside and examine the second aspect, the random and without thought part.
For every example of altruism we have countless examples of selfishness without regard to long-term ramifications even for the actor, let alone the acted upon.
We also have countless examples of situations wherein the actor would have lost nothing for an altruistic act, but opted to purposely not help the other... which says nothing of the countless acts in which an actor has acted reprehensibly toward others.
So we're left with altruism as a random, unthinking, non-predictive act, as though even the actor himself is an unwilling participant in the event.
Can't buy that.
Can't buy the fact that in order for it to be a sacrifice, THOUGHT is required, even if it is only at a subconscious level.
At that subconscious level, you're insisting the actor is inspired by nothing more than this nebulous ill-defined characteristic, over which he seemingly has not control: are manners altruistic? someone who doesn't steal? obeying rules of the road? tipping 20% at a restaurant?
We regularly observe and expect nothing less than to observe man in his continued quest for self-fulfillment, from birth to death, but in this one scenario, man dissolves his inherent bands of self-inspired betterment completely and paves the way for another to continue their own quest.
Sorry, ain't buying it.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhether he listens or not does not change the fact you are simply wrong. My own experience shows that. One counter example is all it takes to show something is wrong in Denmark.
I've supported it several times and in different ways.
If you don't want to listen, I can't make you.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd I submit that your experience shows the point I am making nearly exactly.
Whether he listens or not does not change the fact you are simply wrong. My own experience shows that. One counter example is all it takes to show something is wrong in Denmark.
You claim you weren't thinking, and yet contradict your claim by describing your thoughts exactly, and the perspicacity articulated conveys nothing BUT thought.
That thought shows your state of mind which acted with purpose in order to make your actions agree with the values you have.
You did not act without purpose, did not do something random or otherwise unrelated to the situation, but instead, you did multiple calculations and analysis which led you to believe your actions could very likely save the other person with a hope such action would not result in your demise.
But you clearly opted to take the route you did REGARDLESS of the outcome to yourself, as you weren't willing to live with a coward.
29 Jun 17
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Close examination of what? other people's minds? Do you now claim to be a mind reader of those that sacrificed their lives for other people?
Let's test your charge of mind reading and see if it holds water.
Are you claiming to be able to read the mind of the person who sacrificed their life for another to live?
In science, in general, the si ...[text shortened]... completely and paves the way for another to continue their own quest.
Sorry, ain't buying it.
Are you claiming to be able to read the mind of the person who sacrificed their life for another to live?
No. So why are apparently you?
truth itself is not contingent upon lack of complexity.
right, but with all else being equal, the truth is assumed to be more likely to be whichever simplest possible explanation works perfectly well. This is the old well established scientific principle of Occam's razor ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The "most likely" designation is more related to the hypotheses which requires the least amount of assumptions--- again, this doesn't make it irrefutably true,
And neither I nor anyone else CLAIMS it does. You resort to strawman?
The assumption of altruism is, in my mind, the equivalent of relying on a miracle: some unknown factor which cannot be examined or questioned,
No, via introspection, it is an empirical fact to me and all other none psychopaths that we can and sometimes do have altruism; nothing strange about it. To all people that have it, It isn't an 'assumption' that altruism exists because they KNOW it exists because, like me, they are directly conscious aware of it existing in their own mind and to deny it is as ridiculous as denying the existence of pain.
Part of that disconnect for me is the idea that humans are able to do what even their Creator is unable to do, and not only that, but seemingly at random and apparently (at least according to one self-reported hero herein) without thought.
What are you going on about? How is thinking altruistically not thinking? That makes no sense?
And are you saying that, according to your religion, not even you all powerful all loving 'God' ( ' the Creator' ) can think altruistically!? Which religion are you referring to here?
So we're left with altruism as a random, unthinking, non-predictive act,
no, we are not.
At that subconscious level, you're insisting ...
So appaerently you DO claim to read other people's minds. Sorry! Don't believe you!
Sorry, ain't buying it.
What you are not buying here is your own strawman.
29 Jun 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBH100% bullshyte, since you were not there you have no idea what I was thinking. 1 fuel flow. 2 guy stuck. 3 climb truck, get him out. That was it. There was no calculating involved. It happened way too fast for any calculation.
And I submit that your experience shows the point I am making nearly exactly.
You claim you weren't thinking, and yet contradict your claim by describing your thoughts exactly, and the perspicacity articulated conveys nothing BUT thought.
That thought shows your state of mind which acted with purpose in order to make your actions agree with the values yo ...[text shortened]... ute you did REGARDLESS of the outcome to yourself, as you weren't willing to live with a coward.