Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sick of wandering round in circles with you. What you have been describing all along is an unconditional altruist. My point is that such a thing does not exist. Conditional altruists, reciprocal altruists, certainly do. Eventually, all altruism comes down to either genetic promotion (which is reciprocal altruism (in a different body) on a genetic scale) or to proper reciprocal altruism, whether direct or indirect.
I see you'd added the word "unconditional" to "altruist". This is intellectually dishonest and goal post shifting. All that is required for an act to be "altruist" is that it benefit someone else at some detriment to you. Long term, speculative gain is insufficient to render an act "selfish" according to any standard meaning of that word.
I cou ...[text shortened]... sciplines as to the source of human altruism. Your claim otherwise is just plain false.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo its not. All its saying is that individuals get a buzz from punishing cheaters. This is all a part of standard evolution of cooperation theory.
The passage cited is a direct refutation of your claim regarding "selfish mutants" and support for my statements on that issue.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, it's saying humans are hotwired to be altruistic; I see you conveniently ignored the part about "mutual cooperation". But hold your breath till you turn blue if you desire.
No its not. All its saying is that individuals get a buzz from punishing cheaters. This is all a part of standard evolution of cooperation theory.
Originally posted by no1marauderHuman behaviour exists and men are known to act in certain ways. We ascribe the concept of "altruism" and "morality" to describe those actions. Altruism itself is a school of thought and a concept. It exists only in men's minds. To call these actions "moral" or "wrong" you have to use a concept which may or may not be accurate. Would you say that an ant that puts itself in danger to protect the colony is acting out of a social conscience? If it helps it's fellow ant is it being "compassionate" or "selfless"?
You really are a clown. What is so hard to understand about saying that morality i.e. a sense that certain behavior is right and other behavior is wrong exists? Not, the CONCEPT, but the reality.
Please don't try to restate someone's argument; every time you do this you make an utter fool of yourself. The difference between morality and God ...[text shortened]... ls we are. That is what we are, and that is a fact, not a CONCEPT. Do you know the difference?
"What is so hard to understand about saying that morality i.e. a sense that certain behavior is right and other behavior is wrong exists?"MARAUDER
I agree , there is such a thing as this sense you describe. It is also true that within humanity there is also a "sense" that a spiritual realm exists because humanity is a predominantly spiritual in nature. Now this sense of spirituality could be based in something objectively true ( eg God) or it may not be. I believe it is rooted in God , you may not. The question is not whether you can establish whether human beings have an intuitive sense of morality but whether that sense is based in anything real or not.
Human beings intuitively sense a lot of things from ghosts , to aliens along with dreams and halucinations. Human beings sense things and this is objectively true but just because we sense them we don't always say that they objectively exist. Our sense of morality is precisely that a SENSE , and that means the sense exists as a phenomenon.... but the objective morality? The sense is the object . Without God what do you root it in? How do you say morality objectively exists but ghosts and aliens don't?
Here's how you should have phrased it.
It is objectively true that there exists within humanity a phenomenon called intuition or a felt sense. In certain situations human beings label certain actions with words like bad/ good according to this felt sense. The feelings produced are known by the concept of guilt / conscience. This sense has lead to a complex sociological system known as social morality.We know the sense/concept exists but at present we do not know whether why men behave in this way or whether this sense is rooted in anything real or whether the values humans ascribe to morality are arbitrary notions inspired by evolutionary forces.
Also , read telerions' "wheel of morality" thread , it's very good.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterWrong as usual. If you bothered to read the links I provided you would have seen that humans are "hotwired" to act in certain ways. Your objection is brainless; we call a chair a chair but that does not mean a chair is only a "concept". You are confusing words which are symbols but describe certain aspects of reality with the certain aspects of reality themselves. This is a childish error.
Human behaviour exists and men are known to act in certain ways. We ascribe the concept of "altruism" and "morality" to describe those actions. Altruism itself is a school of thought and a concept. It exists only in men's minds. To call these actions "moral" or "wrong" you have to use a concept which may or may not be accurate. Would you say that an an
Also , read telerions' "wheel of morality" thread , it's very good.
Human beings aren't predominantly spiritual in nature - that is a simple delusion on your part. The rest of the post is so simplistic and confused that I feel no need to respond to it.
EDIT: I know it won't help but from the article I cited on the preceding page:
Here, we review both evidence documenting altruistic punishment and altruistic cooperation and recent brain imaging studies that combine the powerful tools of behavioral game theory with neuroimaging techniques. These studies show that mutual cooperation and the punishment of defectors activate reward related neural circuits, suggesting that evolution has endowed humans with proximate mechanisms that render altruistic behavior psychologically rewarding.
Neural circuits are real, physical things not concepts.
Originally posted by scottishinnzFallacy of Equivocation.
Reciprocal altruism. It says "cooperation", this is not unconditional altruism, it's cooperating to receive a bigger prize than either individual would get by themselves. This is a selfish strategy.
Selfish - Arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others.
Cooperate - To associate with another or others for mutual benefit.
Sorry, but not even biologists get to rewrite the English language. Cooperation is by definition not "selfish".
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderImagine, for a second, a group of stone age hunters going after a woolly mammoth. No single hunter can bring it down. Only by working as a group can they bring it down. Each hunter could alternately spend their time hunting rabbits. The pay off for hunting a mammoth (in terms of food benefit, also perhaps fur), even despite the increased likelihood of being mauled is greater than the 'cost' of sharing the carcass. Each hunter cooperates in order to maximise their own individual benefit, with no regard towards the benefit of anyone else, except family (who share a higher than normal proportion of the individuals genes).
Fallacy of Equivocation.
Selfish - Arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage [b] in disregard of others.
Cooperate - To associate with another or others for mutual benefit.
Sorry, but not even biologists get to rewrite the English language. Cooperation is by definition not "selfish".[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderStrangely, answers.com gave the following definition of Selfish
Fallacy of Equivocation.
Selfish - Arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage [b] in disregard of others.
Cooperate - To associate with another or others for mutual benefit.
Sorry, but not even biologists get to rewrite the English language. Cooperation is by definition not "selfish".[/b]
"Concerned chiefly or only with oneself"
and Cambridge dictionary gave
"Someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage"
Admittedly OED gave;
"concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others."
Note the word, "expense of consideration", which is not necessarily the same as being at the expense of someone else, only that you don't actively consider what is good for them.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNeural circuits are real, physical things not concepts.MARAUDER
Wrong as usual. If you bothered to read the links I provided you would have seen that humans are "hotwired" to act in certain ways. Your objection is brainless; we call a chair a chair but that does not mean a chair is only a "concept". You are confusing words which are symbols but describe certain aspects of reality with the certain aspects of reality t logically rewarding.
Neural circuits are real, physical things not concepts.
Precisely my point , neural circuits are real physical things. So are brains. We can exam them scientifically and objectively. They are objectively real. You have still yet to show how morality is objectively real. A neural circuit is made of certain biologocal / bioelectric substances . So are brains. What is morality made of?????
"Your objection is brainless; we call a chair a chair but that does not mean a chair is only a "concept". You are confusing words which are symbols but describe certain aspects of reality with the certain aspects of reality themselves. This is a childish error." MARAUDER
You are getting a bit closer now , this is good. We call a chair a chair and we use to the word to describe what a chair is. The chair is not just a concept , it exists objectively , we can touch it , examine it , it is made of wood or something else , it exists , it is a real phenomenon.
Now morality is NOT like a chair , we cannot touch it , it does not exist in reality , we have no idea what it is made of , we cannot examine it with a microscope.Morality (without God) is not a phenonemenon , it is a concept used to describe the phenomenon of human actions.
The objective reality is human neural circuitry , human brains and human actions. We can objectively observe what human beings do (eg help someone across the street) . The objective fact is that someone has helped someone else walk across a street. It can be observed. The subjective concept (created by the objective phenomena of neural circuitry) is that this action corresponds with the concept known in our (objective) brains as "moral".
You see I am sitting on a chair right now , I can feel it physically. That's how I know it objectively exists. I have never seen a "morality" or sat on one. I have seen people act in certain ways and then done the cognitive process of conceptualising the action as moral so I know the action exists objectively , just like the chair ,because I can see it with my own eyes All I can see with my own eyes is someone doing something . The morality bit is my subjective conceptualisation.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterMorality is a way of describing how humans are hotwired to act. You "see" it every single day played out in human behavior. Stop being so simple minded; gravity is real - you can't see it but you observe its effects. Ditto with human morality.
Neural circuits are real, physical things not concepts.MARAUDER
Precisely my point , neural circuits are real physical things. So are brains. We can exam them scientifically and objectively. They are objectively real. You have still yet to show how morality is objectively real. A neural circuit is made of certain biologocal / bioelectric substances eyes is someone doing something . The morality bit is my subjective conceptualisation.
EDIT: Or is your claim that gravity is merely a "subjective conceptualisation"?