Am I being selfish?

On November 29 2008 19:31 GHOSTCLAW wrote:
No.

Although I suppose it depends on how you're going to define karma, because most of the response would hinge on it.

On November 29 2008 19:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
cause if you look at it like that every selfless act is selfish and the word selfless has no meaning anymore because it does not exist

On November 29 2008 19:40 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:

sounds kinda corny when i think about it, but theres a difference between doing it because it feels good and doing it because it feels right

former selfish, latter selfless

im not saying selfish is bad either..

On November 29 2008 20:03 jgad wrote:
Karma is just a word, in the illustrious words of the Matrix's Rama-Kandra. Here it is used in the meaning accorded to it not so much in Hindu tradition, but that meaning adopted for it by the West. It implies the circular nature of good and bad deeds in the West, easily understandable by the fact that others are more likely to share with us that which we share with them. If I steal from my neighbour, he has cause to want to steal from me in retribution. If I give my neighbour a gift, he has cause to again reciprocate, but by an act of similar kindness. I wouldn't call it a silly concept. It's really quite logical.

On November 30 2008 00:33 inReacH wrote:
you are talking about fallout 3 right?

On November 30 2008 01:01 SayaSP wrote:

.................. lol

On November 29 2008 22:22 niteReloaded wrote:
There is no good or bad.


Doing something because it feels right (when it doesn't feel good) is wrong IMO. Because you still do it for SOME reason. To be perceived as a good guy? lame...

On November 30 2008 01:50 HeadBangaa wrote:
Altruism is apparent in the animal kingdom, even in contexts that have no potential for reciprocity. It's an evolved trait and a basic sign of culture; when the individuals begin to think more like a collective, that gives them an advantage.
To says altruism doesn't exist makes me think strange of you, since you've apparently never felt the warm-fuzzies of helping someone just because they needed it =[

On November 30 2008 02:34 jgad wrote:


The point is that those warm fuzzies are nothing more than genetically encoded responses which have evolved on the sole basis that cooperation is mutually beneficial. I'm interested to hear these examples of pure altrusm in the animal kingdom, though. Aside from kin selection - parents or siblings of animals giving their life for each other - I don't think pure altruism exists in nature. Even kin selection is essentially selfish if, like Dawkins, we consider the gene to be the fundamental unit. Parents protecting children is still an act of self-preservation, since the children represent the legacy of the family genes. There is always something gained by both parties in nature, I think.

On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where".

On November 30 2008 01:50 HeadBangaa wrote:
Altruism is apparent in the animal kingdom, even in contexts that have no potential for reciprocity. It's an evolved trait and a basic sign of culture; when the individuals begin to think more like a collective, that gives them an advantage.
To says altruism doesn't exist makes me think strange of you, since you've apparently never felt the warm-fuzzies of helping someone just because they needed it =[

On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.

On November 30 2008 04:39 Frits wrote:


If you mean empathy just say so. You're always making stuff much more complicated than it is.

On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:

Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling.

Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish.

If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it.

Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way)

These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility.

Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc.

On November 30 2008 05:11 Physician wrote:
and hence his claim that the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is understanding.

On November 30 2008 05:13 Hawk wrote:


Idiots like you can find a negative in any kinda of generous action. I'm sure Bill Gates just donates tons of money each year because it gives him a chubby.

On November 30 2008 04:39 Frits wrote:


If you mean empathy just say so. You're always making stuff much more complicated than it is.

On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.
And yeah travis jesus if you wanna convey a thought try to make it as clear as possible, stop with the enigmas already lol

On November 30 2008 05:18 travis wrote:


like I do that on purpose, what the hell

if I meant empathy and I thought of the word empathy and I knew the word empathy then I would have used the word empathy.

in this case no, I did not mean empathy. is what I said the definition of empathy?

On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:

Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling.

Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish.

If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it.

Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way)

These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility.

Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc.

On November 30 2008 05:20 Klockan3 wrote:

Definition of empathy:
"A sense of shared experience, including emotional and physical feelings, with someone or something other than oneself."

Yeah, what you said is pretty much equal to empathy.

On November 30 2008 05:26 ManBearPig wrote:


If you seriously think that every action is preceded by conscious deliberation, you're weird. When you see an old woman struggling to pick up groceries or something like that, you're not gonna stand there weighing the pros and cons to helping her. You just do it, and afterwards you feel good about yourself. You can indeed consider this as a reward that has arisen through evolution, but it's not something you consciously lust for.

On November 30 2008 05:26 ManBearPig wrote:
Also, what kind of definition of 'selfish' is that lol, you can be selfish without hurting anyone else

On November 30 2008 05:31 travis wrote:


no, it absolutely isn't.

empathy is a subjective mode of experience.
what I was saying is an objective description of the way the universe works.

empathy is limited to what one can identify with. what I was talking about is much more encompassing.

anyone can empathize. what I was talking about takes a certain type of understanding.

physician understood what I meant.

On November 30 2008 05:37 Klockan3 wrote:

Not consciously, no, but really consciously you do not do much at all at all. Outside of science there is no real reasoning, since the weights of every option is purely based on your instincts you just ask your instincts what to do, not reasoning. Now in the situation with the lady you do not need to ask your instincts by modelling situations but instead you got the situation right in front of you.

And instincts are built up based on partly genetics and partly on previous experience which includes the mental rewards/punishments you feel constantly through life.


I mean all kinds of hurting, such as hurting economically, emotionally, physically etc, not just pure physical pain.

And yes, since I argue that every act is selfish you can be selfish without doing such things, but overall that's how society views you which is all that have any meaning to discuss.

And we are not just discussing society's views on good/bad, since the OP talked about the rules for karma if you consider that you just do it for karma, then I say taht if you think in that way every action can be seen as selfish since none ever does anything without believing that they will get something for it.

On November 30 2008 05:47 ManBearPig wrote:




There's no real reasoning outside of science? Let's take the laziness example. When I'm lying in my bed, and I'm too lazy to go to class, I'm gonna be weighing the pros and cons pretty thoroughly before deciding to get up or to stay in bed. I do think this is more than just 'instinct'.

On November 30 2008 05:47 ManBearPig wrote:


I would say that this is true most of the time, but there are exceptions. You can think of a situation in which someone does something completely selfless. You can't mix the evolutionary explanation, which has more to do with unconscious stuff, with the more logical explanation, which has to do with weighing things over.

On November 30 2008 05:48 Physician wrote:
I just hope oneofthem doesn't find this thread and rips all to shreds lol..

On November 30 2008 05:37 Klockan3 wrote:
And you believe that since people are unconsciously so understanding that they understand that in the long run everyone is happiest if everyone's action was to ensure the maximum good for the whole population instead of the self?

However since none on earth are selfless in that sense your point is moot. Unless you regard every individual as an equally viable candidate to receive your help then you are not going by that philosophy.

On November 30 2008 06:07 travis wrote:


I don't know what you are talking about. I never said anything about what I think people believe or understand. What was happening before was speculation about the nature of selflessness, no?

And I never said anything about the whole population vs individual or whatever. That isn't what I was saying.

On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where".

On November 30 2008 06:07 travis wrote:
I am selfless in that sense, from time to time. So clearly you are wrong when you say "none are selfless in that sense".

On November 30 2008 06:16 Klockan3 wrote:

But then explain to me, how this:

do not show that:
A: You believe that understanding is the main drive force for good and higher morality.

B: The understanding in question is that since the person you are helping could just as well have been you.

(Even though it is physically impossible if everyone have that thought it gets true)

Now from A+B you can easily get that since every person on earth could be you, the actions you do is based on how good/bad it is in total for all people and therefore the force of good would be that people understand that it would be the best action for humankind as a whole.

You can't be selfless like that "from time to time" either you are like that all of the time or you are not like that at all. What you are referring to here is just empathy.

To make my point clear, look at it like this: As soon as you start to judge people you are not selfless in that sense. Therefore if you at a point feel that you are doing it like that and at another point you do not help someone it was just the circumstances that got you doing it and not the selflessness of yourself.

On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where".

On November 30 2008 06:44 travis wrote:
not "could just as well have been you"
rather "is you". well that isn't quite right either but it's closer than "could just as well have been you"

On November 30 2008 01:42 RaGe wrote:
altruism doesn't exist

On November 30 2008 09:28 DamageControL wrote:

So you believe nurture creates our personalities and by nature were all the same?

EDIT: clarification
EDIT 2:
If so, how did you arrive at this belief? Because I believe intelligence, at the very least, exists to some extent. That changes decisions, and thereby changes experiences. Other things, such as emotional quotient are also pre-determined to some extent. They can be developed, but your base talent (for lack of a better word) at these subjects comes in to play
+ Show Spoiler +

On November 30 2008 09:48 3clipse wrote:

this

No being is capable of consciously doing something that does not provide benefit to itself either physically or psychologically.

On November 30 2008 09:52 travis wrote:


I don't think I am a body or a brain.

Sure, intelligence - in whatever terms it is defined - exists. And you can say that it determines [x]. Or you can say that genetics determines [y]. Or that your upbringing determines [z].

But none of these things are me. My experiences are linked to them, sure. But they are not those things theirselves. I am not my body or my brain. I am my experiences.

On November 30 2008 09:31 Klockan3 wrote:

So, what "new age" crap is this?

Also I am was not looking into contradictions in your statements, I was just trying to take the same logic further.
Like:
1: People are good with each other due to them understanding that in a way other people are them.
2: From 1 follows that being good is treating everyone equally no matter who, where or when they are, since a random person in south Africa is as much you as your best friend.

The problem comes then of course with the notion of evil, if a guy gets attacked, should you then assume that the attackers are right since you are in a way the attackers or should you assume that the victim is innocent for the same reason?

So it is between "Could as well have been" and "Is", is it a religious thing like the holy spirit? Or is it a perverted version of quantum theory? Please explain more. Edit: Or is it like the guy above says?

On November 30 2008 09:52 DamageControL wrote:

Why? You've never done something solely for the sake of your friends? Or family? You wouldn't help a stranger out ever?
You've never done anything solely for the benefit of someone else?

On November 30 2008 09:54 DamageControL wrote:

But... Your experiences are different then others who would be in the same circumstances aa x y and z.

And try as you might you ARE your brain or your body, as your perception changes your experience.

On November 30 2008 10:01 travis wrote:


what? why is that?
if someone else was in my circumstance they would experience what I experience.




try as I might?


no I am not my brain or my body. I am experiences. my experiences are not my brain and my body, they are just linked to them.

you cannot say conclusively that the experiences come from the brain or the body. there is no proof of this. there isn't even any evidence of this. all there is evidence of is linkage.

On November 30 2008 09:52 travis wrote:


I don't think I am a body or a brain.

Sure, intelligence - in whatever terms it is defined - exists. And you can say that it determines [x]. Or you can say that genetics determines [y]. Or that your upbringing determines [z].

But none of these things are me. My experiences are linked to them, sure. But they are not those things theirselves. I am not my body or my brain. I am my experiences.

On November 30 2008 10:09 DamageControL wrote:

Sorry, i'm bad at the quote thing! I'm just gonna use roman numerals
I. Because they would react differently. They are more or less intelligent then you. Their feelings are different than your, their experiences inevitable change, they can't possibly have the exact same experiences as you because they are different than you.

II.Yeah, but experiences are linked to who you are. Not everyone reacts the same way, and you play a part in forming your experiences. Therefore you help shape your experiences.
EDIT: For example we are living identical lives. We both make the decision to take the SAT. We study the same amount. Our experiences are exactly the same EXCEPT you are smarter than me. You score higher. At that point the experience chang

On November 30 2008 10:09 DamageControL wrote:

Sorry, i'm bad at the quote thing! I'm just gonna use roman numerals
I. Because they would react differently. They are more or less intelligent then you. Their feelings are different than your, their experiences inevitable change, they can't possibly have the exact same experiences as you because they are different than you.

On November 30 2008 10:18 travis wrote:
Everything I was born with is circumstances.

My body is circumstances. My intelligence is circumstances. My attitudes and behaviors are circumstances. It's all circumstances.

On November 30 2008 10:13 Klockan3 wrote:

So how is this different from spirituality or any other kind of new age crap?

Fact is, we can erase your memory and you will still be you, just without your "experiences".

On November 30 2008 10:13 Klockan3 wrote:
You are crap at arguing, let me help you:

On November 30 2008 10:21 Klockan3 wrote:

So a cow should be considered a fellow experiencer and therefore have the same rights as a human?

Your logic actually do not hold, now that I see what exactly you are trying to say.

On November 30 2008 10:18 travis wrote:


I think you misinterpret what I mean by circumstances. I consider everything outside of my control to be circumstances.

Everything I was born with is circumstances.

My body is circumstances. My intelligence is circumstances. My attitudes and behaviors are circumstances. It's all circumstances.

everything on the surface in this physical realm is circumstances. and I am not even sure if there is anything more, I am not sure if we transcend anything or have any control whatsoever. do you believe we have any control over what we do, beyond the mere experiencing of control?

anyways, the point I was making is pretty basic I think I can safely assume that you understood what I meant now.

On November 30 2008 10:31 DamageControL wrote:


The fact is, a lot of what happens with us is determined by things outside our control. But, we must not allow that to rule our lives, or we allow our predetermined selves to be evil. We must therefore prove that we are not destined to be killers or muderers or this or that, but instead people who are productive.

Anyways back to the point, the very first one you made. We have innate personality features. Your intelligence and everything else is not determined by experience. So what separates you from another person could be your moral fiber and intelligence not your experiences.

On November 30 2008 10:38 travis wrote:


what is within our control?



What I am saying is that "your intelligence and everything else" is like descriptions of what you are. They are not what you are.

On November 30 2008 10:28 travis wrote:
What I am saying is what buddhism is.

On November 30 2008 10:39 DamageControL wrote:
To Klochan3: The point here isn't to be the 'best arguer'

On November 30 2008 11:01 Klockan3 wrote:

Couldn't you have said that from the start?

On November 30 2008 10:42 DamageControL wrote:

I. Nothing is within our control. Except our decisions now. Whether they are pre-determined or not, it does not diminish the worth of making good decisions and bad decisions.

On November 30 2008 11:01 Klockan3 wrote:

Couldn't you have said that from the start?


I do not try to be the best arguer, I try to get points across, do not matter if its mine, yours, travis or anyone else arguing. For me argumentations are about learning, and nothing hurts more than seeing a person lay out interesting points but leaving a ton of holes in it which means that the recipient will just poke hole in the points and once again stalling the discussion.

I want to see how others see things, and to do that you need to get them to stop rehashing the mantras of their opinions sides and instead start actually talking about their own personal beliefs on the matter. And usually the only way to remove all the generic arguments in one go, either by crushing them instantly or laying all of them out and thus showing that you are not ignorant on the subject and instead wants to talk to them and not their pamphlet.

And excuse my tone, it is just that trying to argue with a religious person is like trying to bang your head against a wall and I did not this time expect it which made me a bit frustrated.

On November 30 2008 11:05 travis wrote:


it is my ideas, it is just coincidence that it is also what buddhism believes.

On November 30 2008 11:06 food wrote:
travis destroyed poor swede. let him breathe lol

On November 30 2008 11:11 DamageControL wrote:

You insult people out of hand, and use the same tactic of try to poke little technicalities in what the other person is saying. Lets not forget this all started with you getting annoyed how travis over complicates things (I think he tends to too, but at the same time, its the idea, not the wording that counts.)
EDIT: Meaning no offense to either you or travis. I understand the competitive urge, but I think your lying if you say you don't have it.
Travis, your wording is occasionally overly complex. I have no problem with this, but I think... well one should try to make his ideas as accessible as possible.

On November 30 2008 11:11 DamageControL wrote:


Travis, your wording is occasionally overly complex. I have no problem with this, but I think... well one should try to make his ideas as accessible as possible.

On November 30 2008 11:19 DamageControL wrote:
If i remember correctly Buddhism is a lot philosophy a little religion

On November 30 2008 11:19 DamageControL wrote:
If i remember correctly Buddhism is a lot philosophy a little religion

On November 30 2008 11:30 travis wrote:


this may be so but it is not intentional. I think it has much to do with the subject matter. Oftentimes people don't realize that there are in fact subtle differences between the way I say something and a less complex version of what I say.

On November 30 2008 11:36 Klockan3 wrote:

The point is about the supernatural self that is a sum of experiences. It is not tied to anything of this world and therefore it can't be argued about unless you start to get into an argument of pure beliefs and I have no intentions of doing so, I am happy enough trying to understand everything that can be understood instead of dwell on things that can never be understood.

Also I am apologizing to Travis for being rough, I shouldn't really get frustrated by internet discussions.

On November 30 2008 11:42 travis wrote:



if you can't identify with something you should say that you can't identify with it, not that it is wrong.

On November 30 2008 11:42 travis wrote:
buddhism is verifiable

On November 30 2008 11:44 Klockan3 wrote:

Did I ever say that it was wrong?

How?

When I am sober and on adderall I am rarely wrong.

On November 30 2008 12:52 tube wrote:
man this frits/travis battle is so sick

On November 30 2008 09:52 DamageControL wrote:
Why? You've never done something solely for the sake of your friends? Or family? You wouldn't help a stranger out ever?
You've never done anything solely for the benefit of someone else?

On November 30 2008 13:38 TheYango wrote:


The problem is that you can't be altruistic unless you devote yourself equally to everyone. And that's a paradox, because you can't act while devoting yourself equally to any two parties in conflict.

You do things for your friends, and for the sake of your family, and for complete strangers. But don't you do MORE for your family or friends than for strangers? Why is that?

Because they're your family and friends.

You buy a diamond ring for your wife, but not for the woman you don't know on the street. That implies a preference, and THAT is selfish.

Suppose that a terrorist is holding hostages. Who do you support? The terrorist, or the hostages? There is no objective, empirical way to say that one side is right, and one side is wrong. Even in a situation that has no bearing on yourself, any choice is an affirmation of your beliefs. But your beliefs are arbitrary. So, siding either way cannot be considered "selfless". This is the paradox of altruism.

On November 30 2008 13:43 DamageControL wrote:
Simply because you feel the need to help someone, with no benefit towards you, doesn't mean you have to give yourself equally to everyone.

On November 30 2008 13:52 TheYango wrote:


Altruistic acts are performed to be beneficial without the view to benefit one's self, but ultimately the debate comes down to what is considered "the view to benefit one's self."

My line of reasoning is this:

If you perform an act that of "altruism", you must be doing what you think is right (because doing what you think is wrong, without some outside motivation, is just a silly idea). Except what YOU think is right is arbitrary. Because there is no objective standard to what is right, your act affirms to yourself your beliefs. So at the bare minimum, the fact that you THINK something is right is affirming to yourself your own beliefs, and is therefore selfish, because that affirmation benefits you in some psychological way.

On November 30 2008 09:28 DamageControL wrote:

So you believe nurture creates our personalities and by nature were all the same?

On November 30 2008 05:48 Physician wrote:
I just hope oneofthem doesn't find this thread and rips all of us to shreds lol..

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.


No sensible person believes that. That's more of an ethical guideline of how you should consider other people. The alternative is to stratify how you treat people by their inherent qualities, also known as "bigotry".

On November 30 2008 10:13 Klockan3 wrote:

So how is this different from spirituality or any other kind of new age crap?

Fact is, we can erase your memory and you will still be you, just without your "experiences".

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'.

On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:

What else would he do with the money? Money have no defined happiness value which makes your point moot.

On December 01 2008 01:12 DamageControL wrote:

If you read the thread he didn't mean that, really. He meant we were all the same, save our experiences. He's saying that the only difference between people is the when and the where (or rather the only difference between experiences, and you ARE your experiences) I don't believe this is true.

Travis has the most vague definition of self EVER. I see where he's coming from on some of his thoughts, like the lack of control over our lives, I've thought of that line of reasoning before. But his definition of self is flawed, i think.

On December 01 2008 01:24 HeadBangaa wrote:

No offense, but I can't respond to you because of the ambiguity of your response.

-Who is he, travis or Klockan?
-What is that? My point, or what I quoted? I posited nothing, so I'd like to see a restatement of "that" before you shoot "that" down.
-What is this? ( ^ Ditto)

It seems to me you restated exactly what I said in quoting travis, yet tell me I quoted him wrong, but ultimately agree with me. Very confusing.

On December 01 2008 01:28 ManBearPig wrote:
Yeah sure but I think pretty much every definition of the self is flawed. It was vague alright, but it was less flawed than the one Klockan mentioned. Why, you ask?
Well, linking the self to a physical body has these problems, amongst others;
- Every so many years your body is completely built up from different, newer cells.
- Would you still be yourself after you lose an arm? How about when you lose everything except your head and the rest is replaced by a robotic body? Is robocop Eric Murphy (or what was his name)? I don't think so.
- If you wanna link it to just the brain, the same problem applies.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

On December 01 2008 00:43 HeadBangaa wrote:

Is this a joke?

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?

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. .

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'.

On December 01 2008 01:28 ManBearPig wrote:
Well, linking the self to a physical body has these problems, amongst others;

On December 02 2008 05:31 ManBearPig wrote:
I never said you can tie a person to his memories.

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'.

On December 02 2008 05:31 ManBearPig wrote:
What the hell is 'strawmans' ?

On December 02 2008 06:18 Klockan3 wrote:

But still you argued that you could not say that its the same person if they have a memory loss, can you make up your mind?
Look at what you wrote in this post, and what I said in the post you replied too:

and as for:

A strawman argument is when you instead of confronting the real arguments of the opponent build your own altered versions of his arguments which are usually much easier to beat down and then beats those arguments deliberately, thinking that you just owned a discussion.