Until such a time that actual studies can get beyond this "it seems like this..." stage, the way I'm describing it seems to fit with what's going on as well.
All the studies you're talking about can easily be explained with the way I'm describing things as well.
At some point up the hierarchy of consideration a 'desire to help others' emerges - but that 'desire to help others' is almost certainly built upon things doing stuff without consideration of others per se. The pathways in your brain that lead to your decision to help others were shaped by reward/punishment trials in your past. Helping others has proven socially useful, which has reinforced the behaviour. The reinforcement process occurs using such things as neurochemicals which have the advantage of acting on multiple neurons over a period of time.
But there's one more stage you're not touching on here.
Perhaps this is where things developed originally. But what about now that I'm fully consciously aware, I have time, and I'm able to consciously reflect on my past actions and my future plans?
Just because something (possibly) started out as a desire does not mean that the reason I do it now is still because of that desire. Even if that desire is still present.
a god made the folking deal: your belief in exchange for a ransom paid to himself
You simply know the truth from what is not, by elimination, that is how people can ascertain what has been corrupted because the truth would never be egocentric nor command people to accept or love, because true love is spontaneous, which means Love can't be commanded. Also the Truth would never utilize a common generic designation, god or elohim, as if it was a holy name, much less in reference to him or her self.
re'Legion's biggest and most demonic lie ever told in your sacred bible was to convince the World that the means for them to be forgiven implied killing or sacrificing a person or a firstborn son, rather than just forgive. For the World so loved the god(s) to the point of killing a first-born son so that everyone who believed the price for their sins had been paid should believe also in the god.
. . . . .
Actually the only thing You can do for You to become friends with your heaven, that is within You, or other people's heaven is help the poor who live in your farm, town or city. Yet, people loved the dark of the beliefs in exchange for having the price for their sins paid at the cost of innocent blood because their deeds were evil
And the real I Am, being the Truth and Fidelity, would never declare or judge anyone righteous for his belief, which is evidence proving that there is a demonic nature in your sacred bible, that is the part that came from the lying pen of scribes and from the fathers of the beliefs or lies, and from re'Legion the devil himself who was made to be a specialist on camouflages that are made to make believe or simply not let You know what the truth is.
That is why there is a good purpose in the existence of a demonic nature in your sacred bible, because people are given a chance to think by themselves, or think by their own heads, and even forget about ministers, elders, reverends and fathers of the beliefs or lies. Also because in heavenly justice, it is like election with free spontaneous will, people are given the chance to set apart the light from the gloom, all by themselves, without religion or any external influence, and then choose the good and reject the evil
Brief Summarized Signature Real life vs too pessimistic archeological-surrealism
As certain as my pet kangaroo rat has always an ace in the sleeve, whether Die Hard (the kangaroo rat) bluffs or not, it's only with a time frame that equates to 4,750 years without multiplying, per every 5,000 years interval, that it would be possible for European population to have taken 49,000 years to reach 1 million people.
This is why the evolutionary theory for the origin of the Human body has been mathematically proven to be a fraud. For not backing up what the theory is saying about the growth of Humans in Europe during at least 25,000 years ago.
Evolutionary theory, in regards to population growth average or Human multiplication rate in Europe, has been proved mathematically very inconsistent and that is why the teachers on Human origins have been omitting and not bringing up a valid population growth model or a possible average of growth for people in Europe to back up the theory.
If the number of children would always be the same from the beginning to the end of every 4,750 years interval within the rows of 5,000 years from 55,000 years ago then there's still the option of stop thinking by the head of an archeo-surrealist, which equates to stop drifting on numbers as if man is a beast and as if everything that happened in life was a disgrace,
That kind of chronological basis surpasses far beyond Hardy Har Har, a depressed, gloomy pessimistic hyena, always saying, 'Oh dear, oh my, I just know it's all going to go wrong'.
That still doesn't change the fact that when I choose to do a good thing, I do it because I want to help others instead of hurt them.
That doesn't sound much different from helping people because God wants you to. It doesn't really explain anything.
I agree that it isn't much different. I never intended it to be. I also don't think it matters. What matters is actually helping people. There are some semantic notions about "why" that can be interesting to detail and investigate (part of this thread has done so). But it let's be clear that it remains "not mattering much."
This statement isn't meant to explain much.
It is only meant to explain the question "Why does Stile do good things?" And it is very good at explaining that question.
Oh for crying out loud! A tautology is defined as a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
Why must you quibble over semantics?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
1. A recognition is made that I am going to have interactions with other people throughout my life.
2. From what I can tell, I have 3 choices: 2a - Try to help the people I interact with. 2b - Try to hurt the people I interact with. 2c - Don't care about the effects I have when interacting with other people.
3. I choose to try to help the people I interact with.
I don't choose this because it makes me feel good. Sometimes it does make me feel good, but many times it does not. I choose to try to help others just because I think it is the right thing to do out of the possible options.
You seem like the child who keeps asking "why, why, why?"
What's your next question? Why do I make choices at all? Why do I decide things ever? Why am I here? Why does the universe exist?
At some point, you simply have to accept the answer of "Because." Or you can wallow around like a kid playing his game.
There are certain assumptions we all make in order to keep moving forward. Assumptions like we exist, there is a world we interact with, other people are separate from us... things like this.
I have already explained that I do not know where feelings come from (in a specific, detailed sense). But the fact is that I do experience feelings.
I also cannot explain why I have a conscious brain that allows me to analyze choices and make decisions. But the fact is, I do experience such a thing.
The rest of my explanation relies on these facts.
If you want to ask "why do we experience feelings at all?" or "why do we have a conscious brain at all?" then I too would like answers to these questions.
Although the answers are seemingly irrelevant, since I do experience such things, and this is what I choose to do with my experiences.
I like ice cream because it tastes good.
This is not tautological. This is an explanation. "Tasting good" isn't the only reason to like ice cream.
Some people like ice cream because it reminds them of their past. Some people like ice cream because it is monetarily cheap as opposed to other desserts. Some people like ice cream because of the temperature.
With all these possible answers... it proves that "because it tastes good" is not a tautology, but an explanation.
Just as liking ice cream can have many answers, so can the reason why people do good things.
Some people do good things because it makes them feel good. Some people do good things because they want to help others instead of hurt others. Some people do good things because they are afraid of punishment.
These are all different possible reasons. Mine is because I want to help others instead of hurt others.
This use of the word "tautology" you're implying can be used for anything.
I drive a Ford is a tautology! Because Fords are what I drive!! This IS a tautology. But just because such a tautology exists... doesn't mean that all people drive Fords.
Stile does good things because he wants to help people.... Stile helps people because he wants to do good things is also a tautology. However, I'm explaining to you that this does not apply to me.
I do good things because I want to help people... but I help people because would rather do that than the alternative choices (hurt people, be indifferent to people...).
If I drive a Ford because I'd rather do that than the alternative choices (Hyundai, Honda...) this does not mean that the tautology of "I drive a Ford!" applies to me. In fact, it means that such a tautology does not apply. I drive a Ford for another reason.
I help people for another reason other than "I want to do good things."
Therefore, the tautology you're trying to apply to me, doesn't fit.
Sure. But it's not an explanation. It's the same as "God did it".
I don't think it is at all. I think it's a very valid explanation. And I'm confident I've defended that position well enough.
All I did was suggest that there may be a biological basis for your "decision".
And I agreed. There may be. But, of course, this also means that there may not be. Or that the biological basis may be irrelevant to the current, conscious decision.
Regardless, you haven't said anything that makes an impact against it being the way I've described.
I understand how a biological explanation works as a basis, for humans in general. But I don't think it works all the way as an explanation for humans in specific.
For one, I get a rush when I do something bad. My body gets filled with endorphins, adrenaline.. all sorts of things. In fact, many times I feel better when I do something bad than when I do something good.
This fact seems to destroy the notion (for me, personally) that my current moral standard can be "significantly impacted by a biological explanation."
Otherwise, why would I want to do good things? If my biological response is actually wired to provide me a more powerful "feel good" feeling from doing bad things... why wouldn't I go in that direction instead? And trust me, I'm smart enough to do it in a way I don't get caught doing it. I did such things for years before I matured.
Perhaps you're lucky enough that you get your 'best physical feeling' from doing good things? This may lead you to do good things for that reason alone.
But I don't seem to be made that way.
Did you read earlier about the urges I explained to New Cat Sci in my Message 87? I receive many, many "negative" urges when a situation calls for me to make a decision. I fully agree that the reason I get these urges is because they will provide me with some sort of "feel good" beneficial response.
And, yes, it's possible to make a conscious decision at that point to not do it, in order to protect my "way of life." But it's also equally possible to make a conscious decision at that point to not do it, because I would rather help people instead of hurt people. Does this 'why' really matter if I'm doing the good thing anyway? I don't think it really matters. So why not just be honest about it?
Who's the best judge as to why I make this decision? Isn't it me?
I agree again that we cannot test my answer. I could be lying to you. I'm not sure what I would be gaining from that... but I'm sure you could put together a conspiracy theory if you were so inclined.
But as for me, I have to thank-you for this extended back-and-forth. It's forced me to reflect upon my thoughts and feelings about the matter again from different angles. And after being unable to find a valid issue with the way I've been describing such things... all of this has lead to confirming my initial thoughts on the matter even further.
Which is why I differentiated between short-term and long-term. You may get a short-term rush and then a long-term twinge of conscience.
But what if I don't get a long-term twinge of conscience? I don't remember ever getting such a thing.
No. We're the worst judges of whether or not there's a beam in our eye.
That depends on the beam in question.
For a question like "what is Stile's favourite colour?" Wouldn't you say that Stile is the best person to answer this question?
It is my position that "the reason why I do good things" is of the same variant, for myself. Especially since the reasoning I'm explaining is fully conscious and aware behavior.
And yes, you can say that it's possible that all these biological things, and other explanation could be happening to me unconsciously and I just don't know about it, but they're still really the things in control.
But then we have 2 different explanations:
1. Some biological changes are going on that are secretly causing me to choose things that happen to align with what I consciously choose. 2. I consciously choose what I consciously choose.
I would agree that there is no way to differentiate between these two possibilities. Just as there is no way to differentiate between posting on a message board and simply living in a matrix with something fooling your brain into thinking you're posting on a message board.