|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Yes. I'm describing a definition which offers clarity and consistency to the use of language.
I'm confused about your invoking the word science, here.
What part of this do you think can be answered by science?
What is an experiment I can perform in which I will observe that my hypothesis is false?
Science insofar social sciences and psychology are sciences.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
???
It's still an identity making choices based on what it thinks is best, because doing the things it thinks is best is in its self-interest.
I don't see why the part of the brain in which a decision originates matters.
According to our understanding the reptile brain is responsible for involuntary, unconscious processes, whereas consciousness is created in the neocortex. The reptile brain just feels and acts, while the neocortex can contemplate on the repercussions, such as what happens and to whom if I do this. The reptile brain is selfish by design with no capacity to override it's urges, unlike the neocortex. This is typically what is thought to make us human, the capacity for empathy and planned altruism. In this context it makes a huge difference what part of the brain we're talking about. If we're talking about an "identity", we are probably talking about a creature with some type of a neocortex.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm not sure what you're talking about, here.
I don't understand why you're invoking free will or how it matters to this discussion. Can you elaborate?
If there is no true free will, you could argue that even when we do altruistic acts, it's just our consciousness making up excuses for our decisions that have already been made by our subconscious processes based purely on feelings and urges, telling us that oh yeah, sure, we're being altruistic. If we leave out the hypothesis for a lack of free will, we have to allow autonomy for the conscious processes and their capability to base decisions on logic and reasoning, which can go against our selfish needs and urges. Meh, I feel I'm doing a poor job of explaining this, but I'm lazy and ESL. Hope you understand what I mean, pls ask if not.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The whole point I'm making is that I don't have to define selfishness that way. I can define selfishness as self-interest and selflessness as a fantasy and my definitions lead to fewer contradictions than those you're offering. I don't have to separate anything under my definitions. It's your definitions that make no sense.
Using poop's example, how is risking your life trying to save a stranger from drowning selfish?
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
To wit: Your argument is that the less I act in my self-interest, the better it is for my self-interest, and that is obviously absurd.
Why could this ever be not absurd?
It's only absurd using your definitions.
All people are selfish, they want to survive. I think we both agree on this. The degree of selfishness comes from the legths a person is willing to go when pursuing their self-interests. A very modestly selfish person will try to always minimize any harm his action causes to others, or altogether decides to not act according to his needs if it hurts someone else. As a person gets more selfish, he'll have less and less regard for what fulfilling his selfish needs does to others, and at the other end of the spectrum he only cares about him/herself.
My suggestion is that people should try to move on that spectrum towards the trying-not-to-hurt-others end.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If a scientist is claiming that science can prove what the definition of a word is, then they are wrong about what science can do.
If they have defined a word that has inconsistent meaning in relation to other words, and that meaning is rooted in a language of virtue-signalling and manipulation, then I think it's well worth all of our time to question if that person is speaking as a scientist at all.
I think you should know very well that science isn't used to define words. Scientists have defined those words so they can discuss things regarding them with each other, kind of like we're trying here. Generally it's better to use those definitions than to make up your own ones if you want to get your point across.
Clearly you have beef with the official definition of selfishness, and the negative tone the word has. I'm also sure the definition is far older than the definition of "virtue-signalling". To me it (still) just sounds like you haven't understood what the definition means, and that it's not just whipped up by the left or whoever to make people feelsbadman.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
How quickly the past fades. I haven't flipped out, injected links from racist web cites, called you any names or even indicated that you are anything less than an intelligent person with whom I disagree on a word's meaning. Furthermore, we've had an exchange in which the topic of conversation has been steady throughout entire posts, not to mention consistency in between posts as we hear and respond to each other. (I still have to dig into that link you left, I glanced, but it's a long read.)
Give me a bit of credit, here.
You usually don't have issues with abstract concepts or terminology, especially scientific ones, and you seem to be adamant about your correctness through 3 people trying to correct you. Just not what I've come to expect from you, so I half-jokingly noted that there's been certain bananaesque qualities in your responses. No offense.
|
Reply With Quote
