Dubstepforum.com

jags wrote:all products of natural selection act in and only in a way that maximizes their own self-interest, no matter what.

way to pull that out of your ass

just take your example of a soldier jumping on a grenade to sacrifice, it's a bit absurd to think that he's just doing it out of self interest so he can get a medal. i don't know about you, but if i was doing that, i wouldn't expect to survive. what good is being called virtuous if you're not alive to benefit from it?

not to mention that you're going with the bold assumption that altruism is a genetic trait... who's to say it's not an emergent phenomenon that comes from higher level thought (it's observed in humans but also often in "intelligent" animals like elephants, dolphins, etc). the higher level thought is selected for favorably because of its obvious advantages over basic thought, despite sometimes resulting in behavior that isn't always exclusively in self-interest

even if it was a genetic trait, there's a lot of genetic traits that exist because they are advantageous to carry and pass on to a relative, because a relative that expresses the gene will make the carrier and/or its offspring more likely to survive, despite not being of direct advantage to the person expressing the gene. that's basically the explanation of how homosexuality could have come to be through natural selection (ie, a "gay uncle" will make a sibling's offspring more likely to survive since they might be more likely to raise the children rather than produce their own offspring).

rockonin wrote:

Sheff wrote:Would you say that females act more on emotion and males act more on logic?

Women act on selfishness.

[+] Spoiler

Elliot Rodger.

Harkat wrote:

jags wrote:

Harkat wrote:If you say everything is motivated by selfishness, you're using a very useless definition of "selfishness"

selfishness = take whatever action results in their highest amount of self-interest.



classic example of altruism is soldier falling on a bomb to save his bros. but you could argue that's selfish because he values the reputation of doing such a brave thing, putting his life on the line, saving his bros, being given a medal of honor, etc as being higher for his self-interest than watching his bros die.

...or he has some notion of it as intrinsically virtuous, and he wants to be virtuous, so yeah, it's in his self-interest. But that's a reductive definition.

"selfish" vs "non selfish"/"altruistic" is still a useful distinction to have in language. I wouldn't really call your example "selfish", while when someone eats all the cakes or whatever, it's useful to call them selfish.

Definitions are supposed to be reductive though. I think you're not seeing the difference between selfishness and greed.

define definition m8

Phigure wrote:

jags wrote:all products of natural selection act in and only in a way that maximizes their own self-interest, no matter what.

way to pull that out of your ass

just take your example of a soldier jumping on a grenade to sacrifice, it's a bit absurd to think that he's just doing it out of self interest so he can get a medal. i don't know about you, but if i was doing that, i wouldn't expect to survive. what good is being called virtuous if you're not alive to benefit from it?

not to mention that you're going with the bold assumption that altruism is a genetic trait... who's to say it's not an emergent phenomenon that comes from higher level thought (it's observed in humans but also often in "intelligent" animals like elephants, dolphins, etc). the higher level thought is selected for favorably because of its obvious advantages over basic thought, despite sometimes resulting in behavior that isn't always exclusively in self-interest

even if it was a genetic trait, there's a lot of genetic traits that exist because they are advantageous to carry and pass on to a relative, because a relative that expresses the gene will make the carrier and/or its offspring more likely to survive, despite not being of direct advantage to the person expressing the gene. that's basically the explanation of how homosexuality could have come to be through natural selection (ie, a "gay uncle" will make a sibling's offspring more likely to survive since they might be more likely to raise the children rather than produce their own offspring).

I didn't pull it out of my ass phigure (I've taken classes specifically on NS/Darwin, ethics, and bio classes). I have zero interest in getting into a long time-consuming argument with you, but a few points:

1) it's commonly thought that in the soldier case, they revel in the (short-lived) knowledge that they will be honored (eg receive medal - but other things too) after they die, in other words - a legacy (why would Achilles fight in the Trojan war if he knew he was going to die?)

2) the second 2 paragraphs are not really relevant to the point. Altruism is just another form of selfishness. Individuals make decisions based on whichever outcome they believe (regardless of whether they are correct or not, humans are not always rational) will result in the highest level of net "satisfaction", "gratification", "utility", "dopamine release" - whatever you want to call it - delayed or otherwise.

It's really more of a philosophical statement/worldview than a biological one, although neurotransmitters (particularly dopamine and probably endorphin) are key.

jesslem wrote:

Harkat wrote:

jags wrote:

Harkat wrote:If you say everything is motivated by selfishness, you're using a very useless definition of "selfishness"

selfishness = take whatever action results in their highest amount of self-interest.



classic example of altruism is soldier falling on a bomb to save his bros. but you could argue that's selfish because he values the reputation of doing such a brave thing, putting his life on the line, saving his bros, being given a medal of honor, etc as being higher for his self-interest than watching his bros die.

...or he has some notion of it as intrinsically virtuous, and he wants to be virtuous, so yeah, it's in his self-interest. But that's a reductive definition.

"selfish" vs "non selfish"/"altruistic" is still a useful distinction to have in language. I wouldn't really call your example "selfish", while when someone eats all the cakes or whatever, it's useful to call them selfish.

Definitions are supposed to be reductive though. I think you're not seeing the difference between selfishness and greed.

I'm not too concerned with the words, more so the concepts.

jesslem wrote:

rockonin wrote:

Sheff wrote:Would you say that females act more on emotion and males act more on logic?

Women act on selfishness.

[+] Spoiler

Elliot Rodger.

He had a mangina though so he was pretty much a woman

Rockonin your ignorance is breathtaking

U remind me so much of my old roommate

is it selfish to believe that all actions are shellfish

OGLemon wrote:is it selfish to believe that all actions are shellfish

No but only a shellfish thinks that all actions are not selfish

Can I have the TL for the recent Slimzos X Boxed show from NTS a week back? It was posted here a while ago, but I can't find it.

JizzMan wrote:define definition m8

My laptop's dictionary wrote:definition |dɛfɪˈnɪʃ(ə)n|
noun
1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary. a dictionary definition of the verb.
• an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something: our definition of what constitutes poetry.
• [ mass noun ] the action or process of defining something. a question of definition. issues of methodology and definition.
2 [ mass noun ] the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound. the clarity and definition of pictures can be aided by using computer graphics.
• the capacity of a device to make images distinct in outline: [ in combination ] : high-definition television.

The point is that a definiton is supposed to express a word's meaning in it's simplest form, that's how we tell one thing from another.

rayman612 wrote:Rockonin your ignorance is breathtaking

jags wrote:

OGLemon wrote:is it selfish to believe that all actions are shellfish

No but only a shellfish thinks that all actions are not selfish

Can't tell if you're being serious. I don't think ignorance equates to selfishness though. It doesn't make sense to say that acknowledging your own selfishness will make you anything other than selfish.

RKM wrote:stumbled upon this




yeeep, this is what they meant

why am i not at Worldwide Festival? Why have i not considered letting the wonderful gilles peterson curate 5 days of my music listening in the south of france before? next year...

jesslem wrote:

jags wrote:

OGLemon wrote:is it selfish to believe that all actions are shellfish

No but only a shellfish thinks that all actions are not selfish

Can't tell if you're being serious. I don't think ignorance equates to selfishness though. It doesn't make sense to say that acknowledging your own selfishness will make you anything other than selfish.

sure, but it does make sense to say that acknowledging your own shellfishness will make you anything other than selfish.



/shitchat

later

All you flesh-holed bodypiercers are PUSSYOLE.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 75389.html

http://uniladmag.com/articles/man-flip- ... lays-bank/

lol big up hampshire