-->
@Critical-Tim
Is anything done without a self-centered purpose?
Yes. Purpose is intention. Our intention may not be self-centered when we do something selfless.
Is anything done without a self-centered purpose?
Posts
Total:
67
-->
@Reece101
I've already made what I believe to be a strong stance, and you saying yes people don't always act selfishly since they sometimes act selflessly is a self-supported idea. If you read back a bit in the history of this thread, I will try to respond to any particular questions you have, the more tangible or practical the better.
-->
@Critical-Tim
How do you get around the intention problem?
In times of war.
Anddddddd, in like a mother saving there child scenario.
Even When playing a team sports even. ( actully im not sure about that one )
As its , " for the team " a team of wich you are apart of .
Sooooooo.
Maybe the times of war one aint right either.
A Trust fall.
Being at the so called " right place , at the right time "
Could help this occur.
Sometimes you feel like You didn't even know what you were doing. ( eg . you just stuck your hand out ) . But thats self pres maybe.
But other scenarios fall under the
( i didn't even know what i was doing. )
Back to the ( In times of war )
10 Soldiers in a bunker and in drops a grenade.
So you jump on it and smother it. Killing you saving the others.
Sooooooo kinda like your comitting suicide.
Rescuing a person.
Rescuing a person puts your , actually, It can put your " train of thought in a " in a diffrent ummm , way .
Can i say way.
Thus maybe ELIMINATING self pres.
Although taking self preservation out instances is debatable.
But that ends up with a ( i didn't even know what i was doing moment )
Sooooo its, Ways to eliminate self preservation.
Or at least think youve eleminated it.
Maybe when teaching a young kid or kids somthing.
This brings me back to . Sports.
Doing something to look cool.
Having No family puts a diffrent spin on it .
I can picture it lessering ones self preservation.
As Being a male lessens ( i would think )
Im gonna pass
PASS.
You can Accidentally kill someone.
You can Accidentally hurt someone.
Accidentally being the key word .
I dont want to say itbut im going to. Accidents can happen.
Or
Spare of the moment.
Things Like ' clicks fingers ' that can happen.
You can Sleep walk.
Thats like . Walking whilst you sleep.
Andddddd
You don't wanna walk when your asleep.
Bringing to.
Having nightmares.
Your actions.
Whilst under the influence of drugs and or alcohol.
Being Hypnotized
Im gonna lock in, sleepwalking.
We've all heard of the silly stuff people do whislt sleepwalking.
-->
@Reece101
Striving to be selfless, is a self centred purpose.
There's no escaping the cranial prison.
-->
@zedvictor4
I could have written my op better. I’m going to refine it a bit more.
Depending on context, purpose entails intention. As Critical-Tims question is ‘Is anything done without a self-centered purpose?’ I think the essence of what i’m saying holds strong. In many spur-of-the-moment situations, intention isn’t focused on oneself. Deb brings up a few good examples of the stuff i’m talking about.
-->
@Reece101
I tend to look at things from a purely process and function point of view
So I would say that the intention of the individual unconnected unit, is self-focused, for itself.
Context might dictate that output is designed/intended to influence other similar units, though this does not make the primary intention of the individual any less self focused.
-->
@zedvictor4
Biological processes don’t focus. Thought is emergent.
-->
@Reece101
You wouldn't be able to focus on your thought process if the very neurons that are creating the thought can't be aware of themselves thus from the perspective of the person's mind thinking up a thought, thoughts would indeed always seem emergent; but this does not make them so.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@Reece101
In times of war, like a mother saving their child scenario. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9860/posts/425691
If you asked the mother who sacrificed herself to save the child, could you have lived with yourself knowing you had done nothing, the answer would be no; but if you then asked another mother who people would consider heartless having not cared for the child's life the exact same question, the answer would be "Of course I could live with myself, I'm living right now." The answer to whether the mother saved the child was not by intent, nor was it by selflessness, but by whether it was what the mother felt that she had to do. People know that their feelings aren't within their control, only their actions; but in both cases the mother only acted upon the path of least effort to accomplish their emotional desires.
The least effort principle is obvious when explained with the analogy that you would never see a person outside digging a hole in the ground if not for enjoyment or another purpose. This is because humans only act upon a goal, being their emotional fulfillment.
The least effort principle is obvious when explained with the analogy that you would never see a person outside digging a hole in the ground if not for enjoyment or another purpose. This is because humans only act upon a goal, being their emotional fulfillment.
How do you get around the intention problem? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9860/posts/425547
It was already concisely said by zedvictor4, but I will try to elaborate. The idea that if we intend to do something only for someone else makes the act selfless is an illusion. The very idea that we want to be selfless to enhance our own moral self-image is indeed self-less in itself, making it impossible to act selfless by intention; and if we were to act selfless by accident, I hardly think anyone would consider it to be selfless.
-->
@Critical-Tim
You wouldn't be able to focus on your thought process if the very neurons that are creating the thought can't be aware of themselves thus from the perspective of the person's mind thinking up a thought, thoughts would indeed always seem emergent; but this does not make them so.
Read some philosophy on emergent properties, and then come back to me. You have no idea what i’m talking about. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, don’t be afraid to ask.
If you asked the mother who sacrificed herself to save the child, could you have lived with yourself knowing you had done nothing…
That’s after the fact. I don't even have to read anything else in that regard. Read some cognitive science on rationalisation if you don’t want to deal with straight common sense.
It was already concisely said by zedvictor4, but I will try to elaborate. The idea that if we intend to do something only for someone else makes the act selfless is an illusion. The very idea that we want to be selfless to enhance our own moral self-image is indeed self-less in itself, making it impossible to act selfless by intention; and if we were to act selfless by accident, I hardly think anyone would consider it to be selfless.
Wanting to be selfless, and being selfless are two different things.
-->
@Reece101
Thought is either a functional process or not.
What do you think powers thought, if not a biological process?
Though for sure, thought is a profound.
-->
@zedvictor4
What about dreaming. ?
Having nightmares.
If your awake , you don't dream.
Orrrrrr
Hold the phone.
Zed.
What about , the act that is ... ( Sleeping. )
More so "falling asleep"
I mean
You cant stay awake forever, even if you want to.
You end up ( sleeping ) like it or not.
One more thing Zed .
Why does the words ( involuntary manslaughter ) keep popping up in my head.
Thats nothing to do with it hey ? .
Then theres that time i shit my pants .
But im not going to bring that up.
Good weekend Zed .
-->
@zedvictor4
Thought is either a functional process or not.
That isn’t in dispute.
What do you think powers thought, if not a biological process?
Thought is an emergent property of biological processes. You’re acting as if thought is material. Do you think it is?
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
We've all done it.
And did you notice, that you brought up what you weren't going too.
And did you ever volunteer for a mans-slaughter?
Hey, well worked out. Tell Reece about dreams and nightmares.
It's a clincher.
And sleep beckons.
23.48
Well past my bedtime.
Weekends a go go Bruce.
-->
@Reece101
Not necessarily acting.
Though, if thought is not a consequence of material processes then what else would it be?
In a sequence of events do thoughts not precede manifest actions?
Does this not imply a certain tangible quality to all events in a sequence?
It really is bedtime.
Goodnight.
-->
@Reece101
You wouldn't be able to focus on your thought process if the very neurons that are creating the thought can't be aware of themselves thus from the perspective of the person's mind thinking up a thought, thoughts would indeed always seem emergent; but this does not make them so.Read some philosophy on emergent properties, and then come back to me. You have no idea what i’m talking about. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, don’t be afraid to ask.
I didn't know that you were refering to a philosophy, so I wouldn't have known to ask. I'm here to learn, so thank you for teaching me something new.
Here is what I found, please clarify this is correctly representing your belief:The case made by emergent thought philosophy is that some aspects of reality, such as life, mind, and society, are not explainable by the simpler components that make them up, but rather arise from the complex interactions of those components. Emergent thought philosophy argues that these aspects of reality have their own properties, laws, and meanings that cannot be reduced to the lower levels of reality.To say that something is reducible means that it can be explained or derived from something else that is more fundamental or basic. For example, some philosophers think that mental states are reducible to brain states, meaning that they can be fully accounted for by the physical processes in the brain.To say that there are different levels of reality means that there are different kinds or categories of things that exist, each with their own properties and laws. For example, some philosophers distinguish between the level of quantum reality, where subatomic particles behave in strange ways, and the level of medium-sized objects, where we encounter things like tables and chairs.The question of whether something is reducible or not, and whether there are different levels of reality or not, is a major topic in philosophy. Some philosophers are reductionists, who think that everything can be reduced to the most basic level of reality, such as physics. Other philosophers are emergentists, who think that some things, such as life, mind, or society, are not reducible to the lower levels of reality, but rather emerge from the complex interactions of those lower levels
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a religious belief; I'm only looking to discuss logically induced and deducted evidence.
I don't mean to discredit supernatural believers, but the supernatural is unexplainable being defined as supernatural, so it is not worth the time trying to understand.
If you asked the mother who sacrificed herself to save the child, could you have lived with yourself knowing you had done nothing…That’s after the fact. I don't even have to read anything else in that regard. Read some cognitive science on rationalisation if you don’t want to deal with straight common sense.
Why does it matter that it is after the fact? I don't think that after or before would differ, she would say the same.
When you say read some cognitive science, you are refering to a vast subject, with almost no direction beside rationality, which is a philosophical topic, not a cognitive science. Would you clarify your point?
I don't think it is appropriate to treat any commonly accepted idea as obvious or apparent without thorough examination; otherwise, we are simply following the cultural norm without thinking. Cognitive science is a fascinating and complex topic with much uncertainty, would you explain what you think about cognitive science is common sense?
It was already concisely said by zedvictor4, but I will try to elaborate. The idea that if we intend to do something only for someone else makes the act selfless is an illusion. The very idea that we want to be selfless to enhance our own moral self-image is indeed selfish in itself, making it impossible to act selfless by intention; and if we were to act selfless by accident, I hardly think anyone would consider it to be selfless.Wanting to be selfless and being selfless are two different things.
Simply telling me this teaches me nothing but that you disagree; would you precisely explain how they are different, and what makes this discernment valid?
Could i do it to you.? Or you i.
Like.
If your sitting infront of me.
Could ( i myself, ) make / move, (you) a act selflessly.
No
Im not saying that right.
Can i do what the post asks to you. ?
Not caring about whos doing the done.
Im sure i can make you do ( done ) , somthing without YOUR self centered purpose.
Shit, still not worded right.
Can someone word that properly for me.
The answer is no hey
-->
@Critical-Tim
Here is what I found, please clarify this is correctly representing your belief:The case made by emergent thought philosophy is that some aspects of reality, such as life, mind, and society, are not explainable by the simpler components that make them up, but rather arise from the complex interactions of those components. Emergent thought philosophy argues that these aspects of reality have their own properties, laws, and meanings that cannot be reduced to the lower levels of reality.To say that something is reducible means that it can be explained or derived from something else that is more fundamental or basic. For example, some philosophers think that mental states are reducible to brain states, meaning that they can be fully accounted for by the physical processes in the brain.To say that there are different levels of reality means that there are different kinds or categories of things that exist, each with their own properties and laws. For example, some philosophers distinguish between the level of quantum reality, where subatomic particles behave in strange ways, and the level of medium-sized objects, where we encounter things like tables and chairs.The question of whether something is reducible or not, and whether there are different levels of reality or not, is a major topic in philosophy. Some philosophers are reductionists, who think that everything can be reduced to the most basic level of reality, such as physics. Other philosophers are emergentists, who think that some things, such as life, mind, or society, are not reducible to the lower levels of reality, but rather emerge from the complex interactions of those lower levels
basically yes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a religious belief; I'm only looking to discuss logically induced and deducted evidence.
The world wouldn’t make much sense if all we had to go off was quantum mechanics. Hence why (like it or not) we look back at the bigger picture.
I don't mean to discredit supernatural believers, but the supernatural is unexplainable being defined as supernatural, so it is not worth the time trying to understand.
No one is talking about.. if I may.. spooky action at a distance. Sorry, I have to entertain myself somehow. It’s a twisted double entendre, I’m not trying to gaslight you.
Wanting to be selfless and being selfless are two different things.Simply telling me this teaches me nothing but that you disagree; would you precisely explain how they are different, and what makes this discernment valid?
One requires forethought, the other doesn’t.
-->
@Reece101
Wanting to be selfless and being selfless are two different things.One requires forethought, the other doesn’t.
As I said before: "The very idea that we want to be selfless to enhance our own moral self-image is indeed selfish in itself, making it impossible to act selfless by intention; and if we were to act selfless by accident, I hardly think anyone would consider it to be selfless."
As I understand it, a person can approach being selfless in two ways, intentionally or unintentionally (accidentally); this is a mutually exclusive condition, making it impossible for any other variation. Of these two, which are you suggesting lies the act of true selflessness? Are you saying that a person can act selflessly with the intention of enhancing their moral self-image, or that they can be selfless without intention (accidentally)?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a religious belief; I'm only looking to discuss logically induced and deducted evidence.The world wouldn’t make much sense if all we had to go off was quantum mechanics. Hence why (like it or not) we look back at the bigger picture.
I agree that there is still more to understand about the world than just quantum mechanics but categorizing it as ineffable magic of sorts isn't the mindset of someone who intends to understand. As long as your position is rooted within evidence that others can know to be true, then I'm interested in understanding your thoughts in more detail; otherwise, I can't be sure whether your case is correct or not, making it of no practical utility, just a blind guess.
-->
@Critical-Tim
Are you saying that a person can act selflessly with the intention of enhancing their moral self-image, or that they can be selfless without intention (accidentally)?
I’m saying a person can act selflessly without a self-centred purpose of enhancing their moral self-image.
I agree that there is still more to understand about the world than just quantum mechanics but categorizing it as ineffable magic of sorts isn't the mindset of someone who intends to understand. As long as your position is rooted within evidence that others can know to be true, then I'm interested in understanding your thoughts in more detail; otherwise, I can't be sure whether your case is correct or not, making it of no practical utility, just a blind guess.
I was using a two pronged approach in pointing out your flawed reasoning in both thinking emergentism is religious and that deductive evidence is one of the only things you need to discuss.
-->
@Reece101
Are you saying that a person can act selflessly with the intention of enhancing their moral self-image, or that they can be selfless without intention (accidentally)?I’m saying a person can act selflessly without a self-centred purpose of enhancing their moral self-image.
This would be categorized as an accident approach to selflessness, and I don't agree that a person who accidentally acts in such a way that it benefits another is considered selfless. You could imagine a person who trades stocks accidentally makes the wrong decision and another benefits would not be considered selfless.
I agree that there is still more to understand about the world than just quantum mechanics but categorizing it as ineffable magic of sorts isn't the mindset of someone who intends to understand. As long as your position is rooted within evidence that others can know to be true, then I'm interested in understanding your thoughts in more detail; otherwise, I can't be sure whether your case is correct or not, making it of no practical utility, just a blind guess.I was using a two pronged approach in pointing out your flawed reasoning in both thinking emergentism is religious and that deductive evidence is one of the only things you need to discuss.
Why do we think if not to deduce or induce knowledge? It sounds like you are suggesting we rely on non-logically derived conclusions, which I can't understand. I can't currently agree with the validity of emergentism in this debate as it touches upon the bounds of sound judgement and the supernatural.
I cannot be of use to conclude or support ideas that cannot be tested and derived by evident knowledge known as evidence as it would otherwise be considered a philosophy or conviction rather than a rational deduction. At this point, I can agree that we disagree, and thank you for expressing your ideas enough that I can understand your position and reasoning.
-->
@Critical-Tim
This would be categorized as an accident approach to selflessness, and I don't agree that a person who accidentally acts in such a way that it benefits another is considered selfless. You could imagine a person who trades stocks accidentally makes the wrong decision and another benefits would not be considered selfless.
Do you consider respiration accidental? For the most part you don’t intend to breath, you just do. I would consider being selfless in the same vein.
Why do we think if not to deduce or induce knowledge? It sounds like you are suggesting we rely on non-logically derived conclusions, which I can't understand. I can't currently agree with the validity of emergentism in this debate as it touches upon the bounds of sound judgement and the supernatural.
You should talk to your subconscious, though some might consider that supernatural.
I cannot be of use to conclude or support ideas that cannot be tested and derived by evident knowledge known as evidence as it would otherwise be considered a philosophy or conviction rather than a rational deduction. At this point, I can agree that we disagree, and thank you for expressing your ideas enough that I can understand your position and reasoning.
Alright. Thank you too.
-->
@Reece101
Consciousness, the emergent quality of subconsciousness.
Is the duality of the beast.
is the necessity of the beast, perhaps.
Or maybe an accident.
Or just so.
Where do you think we are, within the Universal timeframe?
Are we just an unnoticed and temporary accident?
-->
@zedvictor4
Sorry zed, but i’m not your guru.
-->
@Reece101
Am I not yours?
What did you not understand?
Why were my questions so difficult?
-->
@zedvictor4
Where do you think we are, within the Universal timeframe?
At face value I would say i’m in the present. I can only speak for myself. Can you elaborate?
Are we just an unnoticed and temporary accident?
Okay right here I have no idea what you’re talking about other than asking my opinion if aliens notice us and is human existence temporary.
-->
@Reece101
For sure in terms of event and duration, I wouldn't disagree with the idea that we are always at the universal cutting edge.
And I wasn't really referring to being spied upon by the Borg. I was questioning the significance of our emergent consciousness as a necessary or unnecessary
component of the universal event.
So is anything done without a self-centred purpose?
Are we an emergent property of the bigger picture and therefore significant as such?
And by "we" I'm also referring to material development/evolution upon planet Earth, and not just the development of the intellectual blob.
Three possible levels of self-centredness, our own, the planet's, the universe's.
Four...So what about ET?
And thoughts of Quantum Entanglement. LOL.