|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Original Sin - Scripture and Reason | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Yawn. Disrespectful, jar, highly disrespectful. It's becoming something of a habit with you.
I have stated my position and even given examples. If you wish to refute that then you need to present evidence that a specific selfish motive drove those actions, not simply speculate about some imagined motives or causes. You sound like a creationist. I need the exact specific selection pressures that were in play, every one of them, and each specific mutation that occurred and why - or it doesn't count as a refutation. You claimed
quote: I have argued that this is not necessarily the case - but the burden of proof is upon you, that made the claim, to support it. To do this, you need to provide an example of an action that was driven by no selfish motivations - and rule out all possible selfish motivations. I have already agreed that there may be some acts that really are not driven by selfish motives - but they are the exception rather than the rule. The examples you gave so far don't self-evidently suggest no selfish motivations at play, so you have to support your position that there are none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
All you've done so far is claim that your inability to discern selfish motives is somehow relevant. Suppose jar really does have trouble discerning selfish motives. Wouldn't it benefit the discussion if you could point some out to him for the things he mentioned in Message 35?
quote: Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Suppose jar really does have trouble discerning selfish motives. Wouldn't it benefit the discussion if you could point some out to him for the things he mentioned in Message 35? I thought so, so I did that in Message 42. Jar responded with
quote: and you cheered him. Odd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Respect is earned.
To do this, you need to provide an example of an action that was driven by no selfish motivations - and rule out all possible selfish motivations. Sorry but that deserves a BIG yawn. It's just silly. Let's take one case at a time. What is the selfish motive for my pushing grocery carts back into the store from the parking lot?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Respect is earned. I would have thought I'd have long since earned your respect jar, but that's by the by - one should show respect to other fellow members of this forum, even if you don't have respect for them. Showing contempt or disrespect as you have done is at best impolite, at worst it detracts from the goal of fostering civil discussion.
What is the selfish motive for my pushing grocery carts back into the store from the parking lot? 1) The avoidance of the negative consequences for not doing it. If someone 'catches' you not doing this, your reputation is harmed. You are acting out of the self-interest of protection of reputation. And the same 'rule of thumb' applies when nobody is watching too. 2) By pushing grocery carts back to the store, you are instantiating the meme 'push carts back' which increases the meme's chance of being replicated by observers (or even those that merely observe the consequences) 3) By helping your community, you are keeping the community strong. Since your community (From the gene's point of view) is probably composed of those closely related, this helps (but not much, obviously) the chances of the gene that promotes community helpfulness to replicate. The list is not exhaustive, just showing selfishness operating at the level of the individual, the gene and meme. Obviously the effects are rather trivial, but it's a trivial example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
1) The avoidance of the negative consequences for not doing it. If someone 'catches' you not doing this, your reputation is harmed. You are acting out of the self-interest of protection of reputation. And the same 'rule of thumb' applies when nobody is watching too. 2) By pushing grocery carts back to the store, you are instantiating the meme 'push carts back' which increases the meme's chance of being replicated by observers (or even those that merely observe the consequences) 3) By helping your community, you are keeping the community strong. Since your community (From the gene's point of view) is probably composed of those closely related, this helps (but not much, obviously) the chances of the gene that promotes community helpfulness to replicate. The list is not exhaustive, just showing selfishness operating at the level of the individual, the gene and meme. Obviously the effects are rather trivial, but it's a trivial example. And who's better to tell us jar's motives than Modulous?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
And who's better to tell us jar's motives than Modulous? I'm not listing what jar's motives are. I was listing some possible selfish drivers of a certain specified behaviour. Jar is saying with absolute confidence that there are definitely no selfish drivers behind some acts. I concur that might be the case here and there, but failure to discern selfish drivers doesn't mean they aren't there - there are many non-obvious ones at play that are not always consciously available for inspection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
A selfless act is a selfless act.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
A selfless act is a selfless act. Tautologically true. The kamikaze bee killing itself to defend the hive is engaged in a selfless act. Its behaviour driven by selfish entities (genes). Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
1) The avoidance of the negative consequences for not doing it. If someone 'catches' you not doing this, your reputation is harmed. You are acting out of the self-interest of protection of reputation. And the same 'rule of thumb' applies when nobody is watching too.
There are no negative consequences. Maybe supermarkets in the UK are different. Here in the US, one is not expected to push the cart back to the store. There are store employees who do that.
2) By pushing grocery carts back to the store, you are instantiating the meme 'push carts back' which increases the meme's chance of being replicated by observers (or even those that merely observe the consequences)
Oh, so it is all a matter of memes. One presumes that these memes are made of an immaterial spiritual substance, part of a dualist account. Still, memes are not motives. I don't see how this is responsive.
3) By helping your community, you are keeping the community strong. Since your community (From the gene's point of view) is probably composed of those closely related, this helps (but not much, obviously) the chances of the gene that promotes community helpfulness to replicate.
It's not much help to the community, since store employees will eventually collect those carts anyway.Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Oh, so it is all a matter of memes. One presumes that these memes are made of an immaterial spiritual substance, part of a dualist account. No. I've previously discussed what memes are made of in Message 9 and Message 18, and it wasn't 'immaterial spiritual substance' nor does it represent a dualistic account of things. And no, its not all a matter of memes. In fact, my main argument against GDR has been that it is not all a matter of memes.
It's not much help to the community, since store employees will eventually collect those carts anyway. As I said, the effects are trivial because the example is trivial. But it does help the community because it saves other people from having to do it and the driver behind it may be something akin to 'help the community' and that means tidying up after yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry but considered all those and no they did not apply.
Try again. Edited by jar, : spelling and fumble fingersAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sorry but considered all those and no they did not apply. How do you know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Because absolutely none of those were motives. I was there remember.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Because absolutely none of those were motives. I was there remember. I'm not suggesting that you would necessarily be conscious of those motivations - some of them don't even 'belong' to you. For all I know you could have confabulated your own rationalization for why you do it. What do you think your motives were? And how have you established that they are the only motives at play? We could postulate kin-selection effects mis-firing. You want to help others in your community which results in increasing the frequency of the genes that drive helping others in your community. As Hamilton noted*, the condition for helping are: B/C > 1/ror B*r > C B= increase in relative's fitnessC = cost of behaviour r = coefficient of relatedness Of course, genes don't have a reliable way of determining r, so rules of thumb may be applied. In the case of the shopping carts both B and C are very small and r is unknown but probably actually very small - though genes might be overestimating r (by means of creating cognitive rules of thumb to determine relatedness). There is absolutely no need for you to be conscious of this sort of analysis, so the fact that you don't remember consciously doing anything like this is not really the point. Your brain is making all sorts of decisions without making them conscious. Now I'm not suggesting that kin selection is what shaped the genes that encourage you to behave nicely in the specific case of the shopping cart. I am saying that kin selection probably shaped the genes the encourage your nice community spirited niceness you exhibit in any number of ways. And that the genes so involved, act in a way to further their own replication. Mutualism and reciprocal altruism may account for some other effects. If it makes you feel good to get your neighbour's trash can, and the cost for so doing is sufficiently small, you'll of course do it. And why does it make you feel good to do those things? Because you are a social primate that has evolved in small communities of about 100 or so that helped each other out even in small ways. You feel good, because your brain rewards that kind of behaviour, because that kind of behaviour strengthens the community, and by extension that helps you, your genes and your memes. And of course - if you are 'seen' to be a helpful person, others are more inclined towards being helpful to you. And since you can't be sure you are unobserved its best to advertise your niceness whenever the opportunity is not too costly. Again, this effect would have evolved under quite different circumstances as we face today, so it might not appear obvious by mere self-inspection. As Dawkins put it:
quote: * Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024