User talk:Lucian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KS conversation

Lucian, I found your comments on Talk:Evolution very interesting. I left you a reply there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Lucian; I found them quite interesting. One thing—it's better not to add new comments to the archives; if there is something you want to bring up, do it on the current talk page. That being said, it looks like the conversation has drifted quite a bit off the subject of the Evolution article. If you wish to continue it, feel free to do it on our talk pages. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

KS, I am certainly interested in "talking" although, as you can see, time has been an issue or, more truthfully said, other interests had a higher priority. Which fact may actually bring up the topic: do you think you do anything at all outside of your self-interest? --Lucian 17:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, I do things that don't really benefit me directly, like edit Wikipedia, do volunteer work, donate blood, and so on, although one could argue that since they make me feel good, they do serve my self-interest. By that philosophy, it is not really possible to do something outside ones self-interest. While technically true, it's not a particularly helpful philosophy, in my opinion, and I don't really hold to it. Is that what you were asking about? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Not to state the obvious but, by natural definition, everything single thing you do (as acting out in the world, as change), you do it for your self benefit and not just so but exclusively so, whether in this world or a presumed other. If you can find any example to the contrary I would be very interested and pleased to hear about it. Whether we like that or not or find it helpful or unhelpful in the being around, that would not change it as a fact. There would be more to the discussion, unless you have the example..--Lucian 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure why you are pointing this out to me, since I said as much in my previous statement to you. Nor did I imply that its lack of helpfulness as a philosophy had any impact on its truth. As far as examples, depending on how you define your terms, I can come up with many—but based on technicalities; again, likely not helpful to the discussion. However, since I am unsure where you wish this discussion to progress, I'll list some below (actions for a self-benefit, as you mentioned above):

• A man is walking on a balcony; he trips and falls to his death (didn't really consciously decide to perform action).
• A woman with alien hand syndrome performs counterproductive activities with other hand (again, not conscious decision).
• A man begins smoking cigarettes at an early age and become quickly addicted. Decades later, he develops lung cancer and progresses to an early death; he regrets his decision to start smoking (re-evaluation of priorities at a later time).
• A woman injures her knee playing soccer but returns to the game, severely worsening her knee damage and forcing her to miss the rest of the season (inaccurate assessment of probabilities).

In your first question, you discussed not self-benefit but self-interest. Merriam-Webster defines self-interest as folows:

1. a concern for one's own advantage and well-being <acted out of self-interest and fear>
2. one's own interest or advantage <self-interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid>

These definitions are more of the practical nature I mentioned above. When I donate blood, by these definitions, it is clearly not an act motivated by self-interest. Of course, I won't gain any advantage by donating blood. Also, when I donate, it is not out concern for my well-being. It hurts my physical well-being, naturally, but it may help my psychological well-being by providing me with satisfaction and performing a service (how you wish to reconcile the competing well-beings is up to you). However, even if it overall helps my well-being, one could say I donate to improve my well-being (since it pleases me to give), but it certainly is not out of concern for my well-being. Agreed? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

KS, the reason to point that out was to clarify the matter of actual fact versus subjective thinking, or philosophy as you call it. Of course one may argue that almost everything is subjective since everything would be open to doubting while we are all individuals with personal opinions. But not quite so. Even if the world is solipsistic, from what I see in myself and around in the response/behaviour of others is that we are controlled by Pain-Pleasure(=inverse pain) as a "given" aspect of all of our senses (even sight can be painful if you look into the sun). I take this as a non-subjective fact and not as a philosophy. Rationality is the way living beings take into account the Causality of the world. Do you believe there is such thing as randomness? I clearly don't but, regardless, that could be kept separate from our motivational discussion. So, getting back, I am saying that every single action we take - upon the world that is - is exclusively motivated by the self-interest of decreasing immediate, or the prospect of, pain (or increasing pleasure). That is the definition of life in this world. Most people believe there could be some form of afterlife and they can only imagine that by using elements of our world, however mixed-up, or up side down, or non-causal etc. anything you want, but still a world of some substance; anywhere you want to extrapolate yourself, it comes with the belief, likelihood (if you even get to question it at all) that you are still going to experience such world with P-P as aspect of your senses. What I am trying to say is that the rationale of your actions in our world accounts for a benefit in this world or another. Simplistically put, all people want to do well on judgement day, or get favorably reincarnated, or whatever their beliefs are. To respond to the other clarification, the "interest" is your internal motivation and the "benefit" is the external (expected) favorable result of your action. It is great for the others that you donate blood. But I say that when you do so, you do it exclusively motivated by self-interest. You're going to get mad now but that seems to be the definition of life. Can there be such thing as altruism? It seems evident to me that it cannot. We often mis-state compassion, helping etc. It is very hard to follow you rationality and get to the bottom of your motivation. It is a lot of empathy in action, naturally associating ourselves with similar others (their emotions resulting from their prospects of P-P). I am freaking out if I see a lost dog on the streets. I am crying at the prospect of the "helpless" creature getting crushed under some monstruous Humvee product of mankind. It causes me terrible pain. I am taking him to the animal shelter. I've done some good too. My standings are better. If this is public information, I raised in the eyes of the surrounding others too, however subtle. I'm going to possibly benefit of their more favorable attitude etc. My social (i.e. natural) fitness is higher. The net balance of self-benefit is always positive in your rationalizing of whatever act you do otherwise you would not donate a drop of blood KS. By that I mean that you do it exclusively for yourself. That's what I think. Of course we don't stay to weigh it out that way, our rational thoughts have long been bundled in structures such as emotions (as fast response rational thoughts that we developed since birth) and mentality (as thoughts that we take for granted, rarely question again).

Your examples (we talk of conscious acts):

• man walks on balcony for whatever his reason (observe a particular something, relate to the world, get fresh air); he had not judged as falling to his death would be a likely possibility;
• woman not controlling hand is not an example of consciously acting, as you say;
• man smoking; all of our acts are "rational" from a personal standpoint at the time we take them, otherwise we wouldn't act since it wouldn't make sense to; at the same time others may judge us to behave "irationally" (i.e. in our detriment) for reasons that we then cannot see; we can ourselves deem the act as having been irrational, when having a clearer picture; man starts smoking for increasing social fitness etc., that continues plus addiction that starts operating on P-P from there on; some can overcome it by the balancing of the prospect of higher pain or conceivably highest pain (death). Of course he regrets his earlier "irrational" decision even as he continues to smoke. I regret drinking soda instead of water knowing that it erodes my teeth/gums etc. but is a balancing act.
• woman returns to the game as the benefits of winning it (or her personally shining in front of some important others there) outweigh, in her current reasoning, the risk of further injury which would unlikely result in underperformance (or missing) for the rest of the season.

Again, there would be more to the subject if we could clear a basis. I don't know if you'd be interested to do some bottom line (self) analysis and still come up with some counter-example to the above. Thanks.--Lucian 19:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)