EPTAm I being selfish? - Page 7
| Blogs > kdog3683 |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
| ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
On December 01 2008 01:30 DamageControL wrote: Yourself is your knowledge, your personality, all that, or that's what I think. Not just your experiences, not just your body, a combination of your innate features, and what your past has taught you. Yeah well you could interpret 'experiences' really broadly and it would almost come to the same definition. I would have to agree with you, but there's still problems with this definition. A reocurring problem with any definition of the self is where to draw the line. If you would look at a picture of yourself 8 years ago, you'd say 'that's me'. But actually, nothing about that is who you currently are. Your body is different, your personality, your knowledge. But you're pretty much the same you were yesterday. How about 3 months ago? etc. So perhaps a vague definition can be useful, in that it can be more dynamic or flexible than a more 'exact' one. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On December 01 2008 01:36 ManBearPig wrote: Yeah well you could interpret 'experiences' really broadly and it would almost come to the same definition. I would have to agree with you, but there's still problems with this definition. A reocurring problem with any definition of the self is where to draw the line. If you would look at a picture of yourself 8 years ago, you'd say 'that's me'. But actually, nothing about that is who you currently are. Your body is different, your personality, your knowledge. But you're pretty much the same you were yesterday. How about 3 months ago? etc. So perhaps a vague definition can be useful, in that it can be more dynamic or flexible than a more 'exact' one. Recurring, for future reference, although I've always thought the word reoccuring would make more sense. I think the self has to do with mental and physical aspects. Even if you've changed drastically, your experiences were the same. You had the experiences up to that point have been set, and then you continue on. Your innate features are also the same, unless you were in an accident or something, which I believe changes your 'self'. If an intelligent person suffers several severe concussions and now is reduced to the mental level of a 10 year old they are not themselves. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On December 01 2008 01:23 Hawk wrote: loolllllllll You think having $100,000 to your name isn't going to make you any more happy then having $100? Get fucking real. And Buddahism as a science, you've got to be joking Well that's not really true, research has shown that once you have enough money for primary life needs your happiness doesn't increase when you gain more money. There's no difference in happiness between people with different incomes in nations. (Basically: worrying = unhappiness, when you don't have to worry about being able to survive your happiness should be generally the same as someone who can afford to live in a castle, doesn't matter a damn thing.) fun fact: There is a significant statistical difference between nations though (not really surprising). edit: Obviously if your ambitions/goals are to make lots of money you will be less happy as long as you don't have a lot of money, though for the reason of not being able to get rich. And one could wonder if that person would be satisfied at a certain point. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
| ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
| ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate There's definately a higher rate in Japan than other rich countries so yeah some cultural thing is definately causing generally higher suicide rates, not sure what it is. Problem with this is that western scientists haven't done a lot of studies on asian populations, and the asian studies that are published generally aren't strictly peer reviewed and went through a much less regulated process. Anyway, economic hardship leads to suicide, but other theories that lead to significant amounts of suicides are serious illness, loss and abuse, Durkheim's theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durkheim#Suicide) and Suicide contagion. Your guess about what causes an increased rate of suicides in Japan is as valid as mine. I wouldn't go as far as saying that Japan has a generally less happy population based on just suicide rates by the way. I would say that wealthiness doesn't really have anything to do with it though so my point still stands. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 30 2008 12:46 Frits wrote: Huh I don't even know what that last comment is supposed to imply, scores for what? you definately are arrogant top that off with attributing most of your faulty logic to being high and your good moments with being yourself You are definately one of the more closed minded persons I know. edit: I am not trying to insult you, just trying to show you where I believe you go wrong, just to be clear, I like you. I always feel like an ass when I read back my comments lol. okay bedtime there is a difference between being confident and arrogant and when I don't try to not sound arrogant I generally end up sounding arrogant to people. that really isn't my problem. I'll take honesty over humility any day. as for whether or not I am closeminded, you really have like no clue at all. you have no clue what I think, the processes I use to come to the conclusions I do. my point in the post you were replying to here is that I have nothing to prove at all. I certainly don't think it is a big deal when I am wrong, nor do I think it is a big deal when I am right. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 30 2008 18:22 Physician wrote: # u know travis, when you mentioned "when and where" and some of your opinions I remembered some one that might interest you; of course for him its "now and here" : ) - beware, he lives in the skirts of sanity: http://www.pmm.nl/philo/philo.htm ahh more reading ill take a look at it i have a lot of reading to do lol (by my standards) | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On December 01 2008 03:43 travis wrote: there is a difference between being confident and arrogant and when I don't try to not sound arrogant I generally end up sounding arrogant to people. that really isn't my problem. I'll take honesty over humility any day. as for whether or not I am closeminded, you really have like no clue at all. you have no clue what I think, the processes I use to come to the conclusions I do. my point in the post you were replying to here is that I have nothing to prove at all. I certainly don't think it is a big deal when I am wrong, nor do I think it is a big deal when I am right. Thinking it being a big deal when you're wrong or right has to do with an entirely different personality trait than being close minded though. I made the conclusion on the fact that you're unwilling to reason in a way that is fair to both parties, when stating you have the truth or that buddhism is a science you're being very close minded imo. You basically state that nothing we say matters because you already have the definite answer. Whether you care or not that we accept that truth has to do with being antagonistic, which you aren't for the most part as far as I can tell. ps. If you're interested in how personality is defined by psychologists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits (It's not that we think there are 5 traits by the way, just that these were picked because they didn't seem to correlate with eachother and still encompass all the traits.) | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 01 2008 01:23 Hawk wrote: loolllllllll You think having $100,000 to your name isn't going to make you any more happy then having $100? Get fucking real. Did I state the opposite of that? As far as I can see, I said that it have no defined happiness value, not that it do not have any happiness value. The thing is that happiness is in no way linearly proportional to the amount of money you have and in the end money just generates happiness when you use it, as a sense of accomplishment or as a security and it is still very dependant on circumstances and what kind of person you are. He have more than he can use, he got one of the largest corporations on the planet and he is safe for the rest of his life, aka his money can not give himself any more direct happiness. As such it is not selfless to give it away, since even though he earns nothing directly on it he earns a lot of goodwill which leads to happiness. Now a poor person would not do that since for him the money can buy him more happiness than what he could get by giving it away, but for a uber rich person that is not the case. As such dragging up how much an uber rich person is giving away in grants is useless, since as I said money have no defined happiness value in itself. On December 01 2008 00:37 HeadBangaa wrote: Klockan, you disregard intention with respect to selfishness, and consciousness with respect to altruism. The only way that works is if you throw away the abstractions which all humans operate on. We don't perceive eachother as bags of water with neurons firing off, like some robot. There is an individualism we acknowledge; the "soul" of a person, even if the soul is just a composite of parts. Through evolution, the bits and bytes of biology reform and yield to that which benefits our traits and abstractions of conscious, not the other way around. That is, the "feel-good" part of realized-altruism only exists to encourage such behavior: to manipulate our conscious behavior. Thus, to discuss altruism outside of the scope of consciousness is irrational, and likewise, vice versa. When you're bunker rushing a zerg, you aren't thinking about the bits and bytes flowing through a network card; those are simply details whose sole purpose is to effect the abstraction (the game you are playing). Thus, only sensible way to proclaim that "altruism" doesn't exist is to say that "consciousness" doesn't exist. And even then, that argument relies on some bent definition of "existence," limited to the concrete only, and that you must also agree that ideas do not "exist", and that a game of starcraft does not "exist"; it's just a bunch of pixels and bits. You kinda brought this on to yourself, but do you think that what a gamer appears to perceive when he plays a game is the correct interpretation of what is actually happening? Anyway, if we are talking about the public's opinions on morals then yes according to that altruism do exist, we are programmed to believe that such a thing can exist. We are not made to totally understand other people, we are made to see what we want to see instead of being an objective observer. Of course this do not mean that we do not understand them at all, just that we understand them much less than we want to believe. And most of all we believe that we understand ourselves much better than we do. However, just like starcraft it do not matter what the foundations are, what matters is what you experience right here and now. I just argue that strictly speaking people do not do selfless acts, but people doing acts which are perceived to be selfless are happening all the time and it would be stupid of me to try to deny that. . | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
| ||
|
ish0wstopper
Korea (South)342 Posts
but it does kinda take away from your deeds since your motives arent pure | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 01 2008 04:56 Klockan3 wrote: You kinda brought this on to yourself, but do you think that what a gamer appears to perceive when he plays a game is the correct interpretation of what is actually happening? Yes. The game is a particular scope of abstraction of real physical events. My entire argument is saying that, the appropriate scope to analyze reality is that in which it is most sensible. Not necessarily the lowest common denominator (molecules, neurons, bits, etc). The sole purpose of the bits and pixels is to create a game experience. So that is the proper scope of abstraction; to describe the events collectively as a video game. Anyway, if we are talking about the public's opinions on morals then yes according to that altruism do exist, we are programmed to believe that such a thing can exist. Agree, and that is sufficient to prove existence. In validating human consciousness, you sufficiently grant for everything in that domain to exist by consequence. This goes back to my 1-to-1 between consciousness and altruism. We are not made to totally understand other people, we are made to see what we want to see instead of being an objective observer. Of course this do not mean that we do not understand them at all, just that we understand them much less than we want to believe. And most of all we believe that we understand ourselves much better than we do. Again, the fodder of conscious thought are ideas as well as physical phenomenon. However, just like starcraft it do not matter what the foundations are, what matters is what you experience right here and now. I just argue that strictly speaking people do not do selfless acts, but people doing acts which are perceived to be selfless are happening all the time and it would be stupid of me to try to deny that. . Yeah. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14896 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 01 2008 01:17 ManBearPig wrote: Ok I just have to say, this is a really stupid definition of 'self' you're using. The one travis used made a lot more sense. Also, just because something is 'spiritual' doesn't mean it's false or 'new age crap'. What, have you any check on memory loss? Just because you lack your memory do not mean that your personality/general thought pattern changes, its just that you don't remember stuff any more. As such you can not tie a person to his memories, that was my point, not that "we are our physical flesh". For the last line I did not say that it was false and I did apologize for being rude. On December 01 2008 01:28 ManBearPig wrote: Well, linking the self to a physical body has these problems, amongst others; And putting up strawmans is not a problem at all? | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
What the hell is 'strawmans' ? | ||
| ||
