Thread: Questions to Ponder: Discuss

Is there really such a thing as a selfless act? Are the words "selfish" and "selfless" merely verbal tools to rate the degree to which one's choices and actions may harm another?

Reasoning: No matter what we do in life, we do it because we have some kind of personal motivation. We help people for the good feeling it gives us, or maybe because we think it is our duty, or even just because we'd feel guilty if we didn't help and don't wish to suffer from said guilt. If the motivation for our every thought and action is derived from self, does that not make everything a person does technically "selfish" by default?

Does free will actually exist? I think not.

Reasoning: Every second of your experience in life, every atom in your being, all the genetics and DNA you were born with--those are the only determining factors in what you do. It's impossible for you to actually make a choice as most people perceive the notion. Your so-called choice is predetermined by countless influences in your life that all combine into one inevitable conclusion.

I find it quite ironic that you argue we make choices based off of personal motivation in your first argument, and then argue that we have no true hand in any of our choices in the next.

If we have no free will, that all our "choices" are merely reactions to the sum of the inputs we encounter, you cannot make selfish or selfless choices because you make no choices at all. Right?

Originally Posted by Capulet

Right?

Not quite. My words were "selfless act" in the first question. And then I made the claim that there is no such thing as choice. Needless to say, the words "act" and "choice" have entirely different meanings.

No conflicts or irony that I can see, but thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by Don

No conflicts or irony that I can see, but thanks for playing.

ok...

Originally Posted by Don

If the motivation for our every thought and action is derived from self, does that not make everything a person does technically "selfish" by default?

Originally Posted by Don

Your so-called choice is predetermined by countless influences in your life that all combine into one inevitable conclusion.

Reconcile these two statements. If you have no choice, how can you make a selfish one? Choice implies responsibility, and if you are merely the instrument of some cosmic design you are not acting selfishly, but mechanically.

Tell me, when a gun is fired, do we put the weapon on trial, or the one firing it?

Over the course of your life, how many stories have you read in the newspaper about someone jumping into a river or an ocean to rescue someone (even a stranger) only to drown themselves.

This is a selfless act. What word other than "selfless" could be used to describe the ultimate sacrifice? Maybe, "heroic"?

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

This is a selfless act.

Is it really?

Perhaps the person could not live with the guilt he would feel, knowing he allowed to a person to drown without doing anything to help. Thus, he attempts a rescue to avoid suffering the internal consequences of inaction.

Or maybe he is religious and believes that by saving a life, he will earn a life in paradise.

Maybe he feels guilty or ashamed of something in his past and thinks to make up for it by doing a good deed, thus making himself feel better.

Is it ever really about the other person? Can you not see how any motivation to perform an action must originate from desire, which can be loosely defined as a longing for happiness, peace of mind. . . other personal, positive feelings felt by the self?

Originally Posted by Don

Is there really such a thing as a selfless act? Are the words "selfish" and "selfless" merely verbal tools to rate the degree to which one's choices and actions may harm another?

Thing is, you cannot call yourself selfless or selfish, aggressive or passive, submissive or rebellious. These are all adjectives a third person puts on you. If you do call yourself anything, you are looking at yourself from a third person point of view. Which means, you are purely looking at what the subject is doing or is likely thinking (in the case of self analysis, you probably know what you're thinking).

A selfless action is, by definition, something that's being done where the third party has much more to gain than the one who's doing it. In other words, it's relative to who's making the description. Relative is the key word here, there is nothing certain, so selfish or selfless is merely an impression.

Reasoning: No matter what we do in life, we do it because we have some kind of personal motivation. We help people for the good feeling it gives us, or maybe because we think it is our duty, or even just because we'd feel guilty if we didn't help and don't wish to suffer from said guilt. If the motivation for our every thought and action is derived from self, does that not make everything a person does technically "selfish" by default?

That's from your point of view. You can't possibly tell me the reason why I breathe. I could be doing it for the sake of the plants that need CO2 to survive. I could be breathing against my will, for I want to die. Or I could be breathing for the sake of keeping myself a live so that I can in turn help my daughter survive.

Reasoning: Every second of your experience in life, every atom in your being, all the genetics and DNA you were born with--those are the only determining factors in what you do.

You are basing your argument on Einstein's belief that everything can be predicted if it can be measured and reasoned. That is sadly not true. Quantum physics are based on uncertainty, and it can be said that if something is completely unpredictable and unmeasurable, then it can be considered random and enters the realm of statistics. Unless you can possibly know what someone thought, thinks and will think, then I can assert that people have free will.

It's impossible for you to actually make a choice as most people perceive the notion. Your so-called choice is predetermined by countless influences in your life that all combine into one inevitable conclusion.

It is also impossible for you to prove your statement, devil's proof.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Reconcile these two statements. If you have no choice, how can you make a selfish one?

I quote myself: "so-called choice." Meaning that others would call it choice. Because I don't believe in choice, I refer to selfish actions.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Choice implies responsibility, and if you are merely the instrument of some cosmic design you are not acting selfishly, but mechanically.

Cosmic design? Fallacious assumption. I think we are merely organic machines. There is no design. There are actions and reactions, such as our discussion right here. I write a post and you respond to it, based on the myriad factors that have formed your entire being and lead you to this place, at this moment, with thoughts and abilities derived from a long series of reactions spanning billions of years, from the Big Bang to this very instant.

You are correct, however, in that I assume we are acting mechanically, as I think all things do.

Originally Posted by Capulet

Tell me, when a gun is fired, do we put the weapon on trial, or the one firing it?

This is a purely philosophical discussion--food for thought with no practical application whatsoever, except perhaps for one. Determinism has granted me the patience and understanding I once lacked. When people offend me now, I'm much more inclined to at least try to understand their actions, rather than indulging in petty retaliations.

Clearly, we need to have rules in place to keep society in order, whether determinism is true or not.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I find it quite ironic that you argue we make choices based off of personal motivation in your first argument, and then argue that we have no true hand in any of our choices in the next.

If we have no free will, that all our "choices" are merely reactions to the sum of the inputs we encounter, you cannot make selfish or selfless choices because you make no choices at all. Right?

Hmm... I didn't catch that. Very perceptive.

Over the course of your life, how many stories have you read in the newspaper about someone jumping into a river or an ocean to rescue someone (even a stranger) only to drown themselves.

This is a selfless act. What word other than "selfless" could be used to describe the ultimate sacrifice? Maybe, "heroic"?

No act is selfless. A lot of religions indoctrinate altruistic morals from a young age so the notion of saving someone else's life would be perceived as an heroic act.

In a situation where the person drowning was known to the saviour then the saviour would have a vested interest in saving the life of said person. If the saviour didn't know the person then they would be saving them from the stance that it is morally correct. The act wouldn't be selfless, it would be due to the person doing the saving not wanting to suffer guilt from potentially allowing the person to die.

Originally Posted by elite

Thing is, you cannot call yourself selfless or selfish, aggressive or passive, submissive or rebellious. These are all adjectives a third person puts on you. If you do call yourself anything, you are looking at yourself from a third person point of view. Which means, you are purely looking at what the subject is doing or is likely thinking (in the case of self analysis, you probably know what you're thinking).

A selfless action is, by definition, something that's being done where the third party has much more to gain than the one who's doing it. In other words, it's relative to who's making the description. Relative is the key word here, there is nothing certain, so selfish or selfless is merely an impression.

Fantastic insight. This made me think. Thank you!

Originally Posted by elite

That's from your point of view. You can't possibly tell me the reason why I breathe. I could be doing it for the sake of the plants that need CO2 to survive. I could be breathing against my will, for I want to die. Or I could be breathing for the sake of keeping myself a live so that I can in turn help my daughter survive.

Maybe there's some misunderstanding here, either on my part or yours, but you seem to be giving examples of motivation originating from self-interest. You presumably love your daughter, so you want her to survive. You breathe because you are concerned about your own survival. You breathe against your will, despite being suicidal, due to the fact that your body won't allow it, (even if you reach the point of passing out, you'll resume breathing anyway) etc. These are the kinds of arguments I would present to make my own point. The last point in particular illustrates the concept of human beings as organic machines.

Originally Posted by elite

You are basing your argument on Einstein's belief that everything can be predicted if it can be measured and reasoned.

I'm basing my argument on some thoughts I had while suffering from constipation and having nothing better to do while sitting on the pot.

Originally Posted by elite

That is sadly not true. Quantum physics are based on uncertainty, and it can be said that if something is completely unpredictable and unmeasurable, then it can be considered random and enters the realm of statistics. Unless you can possibly know what someone thought, thinks and will think, then I can assert that people have free will.

I fail to see the connection between randomness and free will. If your computer has a random error for absolutely no reason whatsoever, does that mean your computer has free will and made the choice to have an error? Maybe I'm just being dense. If you can explain this better, please do.

Originally Posted by elite

It is also impossible for you to prove your statement, devil's proof.

My purpose is not to prove anything, but rather to learn from those who disagree with what I presently assume to be true. In order to do that, I have to present my arguments so they can be demolished.

Also, I'm well aware that neither of the topics here can be "proven" one way or the other. Logical arguments do not constitute proof of anything. The point here is to think, write, share ideas and learn from each other.

Thank you for putting so much thought into your post! I really appreciate it.

Maybe there's some misunderstanding here, either on my part or yours, but you seem to be giving examples of motivation originating from self-interest. You presumably love your daughter, so you want her to survive. You breathe because you are concerned about your own survival. You breathe against your will, despite being suicidal, due to the fact that your body won't allow it, (even if you reach the point of passing out, you'll resume breathing anyway) etc. These are the kinds of arguments I would present to make my own point. The last point in particular illustrates the concept of human beings as organic machines.

This is the part on where debate the meaning of intention. If breathing is against my intention, then it is also against my choice of not to breathe. You're pairing biological and instinctual behavior with those we do purposely and thus to our will. Would you categorize an action as selfless or sefish if it was purely instinctual, or premeditated? To you, is there a difference between instinctual and intentional behavior?

I'm basing my argument on some thoughts I had while suffering from constipation and having nothing better to do while sitting on the pot.

Which, intentionally or not, is what Einstein believed, and current evidence indicate it to be a wrong statement.

I fail to see the connection between randomness and free will. If your computer has a random error for absolutely no reason whatsoever, does that mean your computer has free will and made the choice to have an error? Maybe I'm just being dense. If you can explain this better, please do.

The point is that if you cannot predict what a person will do, or rather, if you can't see the future, then there is "free" will because there is no evidence that proves there is only one possible output for a given input. Which means, a human is a black box who's output could be anything, thus it's free of choosing what to do, regardless of what process it uses to choose. The moment where you can predict what a human will do in any situation, then you prove there is no free will, otherwise, humans have free will.

My purpose is not to prove anything, but rather to learn from those who disagree with what I presently assume to be true. In order to do that, I have to present my arguments so they can be demolished.

But there is no meaning to an argument that is not well grounded on statements that the people you are discussing with can agree with. If the basis of your statement is not a starting point where we can agree, then there is no point to this discussion, and your logic becomes nonsense to me because I don't agree with the point you started from, regardless if the logic is valid or not.

Originally Posted by elite

To you, is there a difference between instinctual and intentional behavior?

No, because both are based on a multitude of factors unknown to the person. Even if you think you know why you're doing something, the sum total of experiences in your life, every moment of perception you've ever had, factors into the action, along with biology. You can not possibly be aware of all those things in the moment of "decision," and so your "choice" is automatic, just exactly like instinct. Therefore, there is no choice--only mechanical and predetermined reactions.

Originally Posted by elite

Which, intentionally or not, is what Einstein believed, and current evidence indicate it to be a wrong statement.

What evidence?

Originally Posted by elite

The point is that if you cannot predict what a person will do, or rather, if you can't see the future, then there is "free" will because there is no evidence that proves there is only one possible output for a given input.

This is a blatant logical fallacy. Because a negative can not be proven, the positive assertation must be true? Do I really have to bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Celestial Teapot or other common examples that utterly destroy this argument commonly presented by theists? The burden of proof lies on the shoulder of he who makes the claim. I am expressing doubt due to lack of evidence, whereas you seem to be claiming lack of evidence as proof. That makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by elite

Which means, a human is a black box who's output could be anything, thus it's free of choosing what to do, regardless of what process it uses to choose. The moment where you can predict what a human will do in any situation, then you prove there is no free will, otherwise, humans have free will.

So if I am completely ignorant of computers and have no way of predicting what will happen when I click an icon, the computer has free will? But when I become an all-knowing expect in computer technology and software, the computer in question loses free will? That doesn't make any sense either.

Originally Posted by elite

But there is no meaning to an argument that is not well grounded on statements that the people you are discussing with can agree with. If the basis of your statement is not a starting point where we can agree, then there is no point to this discussion, and your logic becomes nonsense to me because I don't agree with the point you started from, regardless if the logic is valid or not.

If we already agree, there's not much to learn. If the logic of one's opponent is valid, but the other person disregards it simply on the basis that it conflicts with his current beliefs, that only demonstrates an absolute unwillingness to learn anything. I find that I have the most interesting conversations with people who disagree with me completely. However, it requires a willingness on both sides to give the other perspective due consideration.

You started off great, but I fear this is going downhill fast. Maybe we should just cool it if nothing constructive can be said.

Respectfully,

Don

Originally Posted by Don

No, because both are based on a multitude of factors unknown to the person. Even if you think you know why you're doing something, the sum total of experiences in your life, every moment of perception you've ever had, factors into the action, along with biology. You can not possibly be aware of all those things in the moment of "decision," and so your "choice" is automatic, just exactly like instinct. Therefore, there is no choice--only mechanical and predetermined reactions.

No, there is a clear distinction between both, so much that there are two different parts of the brain reigning conscious and subconscious behavior. That said, not all choices are automatic, or logical, or irrational, and some times conscious and subconscious conflict when making a decision. As far as we know, Human minds are non deterministic machines, which means their output can't be predicted.

What evidence?

The very existence of quantum physics. There is no way of knowing what the state of an electron is, and just by observing it its state gets altered. Which is why it's impossible to measure, and statistically random. The existence of randomness in one of the very most elemental particles in the universe doesn't make things precise, now, does it?

This is a blatant logical fallacy. Because a negative can not be proven, the positive assertation must be true? Do I really have to bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Celestial Teapot or other common examples that utterly destroy this argument commonly presented by theists? The burden of proof lies on the shoulder of he who makes the claim. I am expressing doubt due to lack of evidence, whereas you seem to be claiming lack of evidence as proof. That makes no sense at all.

It's not a logical fallacy, it's a direct implication. If you give an input, and have no possible way of knowing how the output is generated, the machine is "free" to give any output it wishes according to whatever criteria it uses, since you will accept any output because the result is not predetermined. If the behavior is known, measurable, and predictable, then it's "freedom" is lost. In other words, the human mind is free to behave as it wishes so long as there is no way to measure or predict with certainty what it will do.

So if I am completely ignorant of computers and have no way of predicting what will happen when I click an icon, the computer has free will? But when I become an all-knowing expect in computer technology and software, the computer in question loses free will? That doesn't make any sense either.

That is in fact, correct, and it makes perfect sense. So long as none of the observers of a phenomena can predict its behavior, then the phenomena is free to behave as it "wishes" (or in other words, behave how it behaves). This is a valid mathematical statement. Basically:

f(x) belongs to R

f(3) = 4
f(4) = 10
f(5) = 5

These are all valid mathematical statements. f(x) is arbitrarily free to return any value until...

f(x) = x + 1

Its behavior is defined, at which point, it loses the freedom of choice because the observer can tell what the output is, so:

f(3) = 4
f(4) = 5
f(5) = 6

You can tell these are the answers, so f(x) becomes a fixed entity that can only return x+1 and nothing else, whereas before anything was valid, thus it was free to return anything.

If we already agree, there's not much to learn. If the logic of one's opponent is valid, but the other person disregards it simply on the basis that it conflicts with his current beliefs, that only demonstrates an absolute unwillingness to learn anything. I find that I have the most interesting conversations with people who disagree with me completely. However, it requires a willingness on both sides to give the other perspective due consideration.

To discuss how gravity works, we have to agree that gravity exists. All discussions must have a starting point where all the involved parties agree to some extent, otherwise debating is impossible. Because the basis to your arguments rely on a belief that I disagree with, we'd have to start by debating that, having you win, and then discuss the topic in question.

What you used as reasoning is determinism, which has fallen out of favor since quantum physics entered the scene. The assumption that there is an absolute order to this world that can be measured is so far evidenced to be invalid, thus it's impossible to predict with full certainty the human mind. Free will is the ability to make a choice that cannot be controlled nor predicted by outside observers. Humans have free will simply because they are not deterministic machines, cannot be measured, nor completely understood by present technology. As far as computing and mathematics are concerned, that's freedom of choice..

Originally Posted by Don

I quote myself: "so-called choice." Meaning that others would call it choice. Because I don't believe in choice, I refer to selfish actions.

I see you quote yourself. If you don't believe in choice, how can you believe anyone can act selfishly? If nobody chooses how they act, then how can they do so to further there own interests? In a world where all acts follow a predetermined or, if you will, programmed order, then someone can be made to act in a way that benefits themselves, but they can't be said to have acted selfishly.

Originally Posted by Don

Determinism has granted me the patience and understanding I once lacked. When people offend me now, I'm much more inclined to at least try to understand their actions, rather than indulging in petty retaliations.

How can determinism grant you patience? Patience implies you have learned restraint, so that you can make choices in a more tempered manner. You have no choice, thus you have no patience. You have waited the exact amount of time you were preordained to wait, and you had no choice but to wait that long.

I think you have some distance to cover as a determinist, be it in your language or your belief.






Clearly, we need to have rules in place to keep society in order, whether determinism is true or not.[/QUOTE]