The only reason why organics function is for selfish benefit

[Cato]

How does that not disqualify that action as self-sacrifice: "the giving up of one's own interests or wishes in order to help others or to advance a cause." I'll give an example: John was a father to a child of two, john proclaims to love them very, very much. As they grew older, both had been discovered to have horrible kidneys. At one point in time, both of Johns children needed a kidney drastically, he could choose one, none, or both (death). The choice in reality doesn't matter from my position, none would be heroism or sacrifice. But, lets say John chose to give up both his kidneys so both his children could live. He chooses death to provide life for another(s), from a societal perspective the ultimate sacrifice, an altruistic example. Prior to the operation, John receives emotional comfort knowing his children will be able to continue to live, and the other emotional or physical comfort he could feel is near infinite. John sacrificed his organs, but he never gave up his own interests, because if it went against his interests it wouldn't have been done. The act of providing both his kidneys may have been adopted after the news of his children, and if it was, that is now the interest or wish.

Ok, so now you're down to torturing language in an attempt to say that sacrifice doesn't really exist because the sacrificer has a positive emotional experience before the sacrifice. Even the definition you gave doesn't require evaluation of emotional reactions to the idea of sacrifice. Notice I said idea of sacrifice, not sacrifice itself since the sacrificer in your example is dead after the fact. The fact that John valued the continutation of his sons' lives more than his own is the essence of his sacrifice, not the reason we should claim that the act is not a sacrifice.

You can't just run around substantially changing the meanings of words in order to invalidate them.

[max-greece]

That's completely an illogical standpoint, all decisions factually cause an emotional response and/or a physical response...

That doesn't demonstrate that said response is rewarding to the individual.

Are instinctive behaviours rewarding in other animals - lions for example? How far does it go? Does the termite feel reward for following the pheromone instuctions of its queen?

Now if you were to show that the serotonin levels (or equivalent) in the brains of the Orca's concerned rose when they were feeding Stumpy you'd have something.

Right now we have multiple individuals from multiple pods working one day at a time to keep Stumpy alive and we don't know why. It looks like altruism is all we can say.

[x2theone2x]

How does that not disqualify that action as self-sacrifice: "the giving up of one's own interests or wishes in order to help others or to advance a cause." I'll give an example: John was a father to a child of two, john proclaims to love them very, very much. As they grew older, both had been discovered to have horrible kidneys. At one point in time, both of Johns children needed a kidney drastically, he could choose one, none, or both (death). The choice in reality doesn't matter from my position, none would be heroism or sacrifice. But, lets say John chose to give up both his kidneys so both his children could live. He chooses death to provide life for another(s), from a societal perspective the ultimate sacrifice, an altruistic example. Prior to the operation, John receives emotional comfort knowing his children will be able to continue to live, and the other emotional or physical comfort he could feel is near infinite. John sacrificed his organs, but he never gave up his own interests, because if it went against his interests it wouldn't have been done. The act of providing both his kidneys may have been adopted after the news of his children, and if it was, that is now the interest or wish.

Ok, so now you're down to torturing language in an attempt to say that sacrifice doesn't really exist because the sacrificer has a positive emotional experience before the sacrifice. Even the definition you gave doesn't require evaluation of emotional reactions to the idea of sacrifice. Notice I said idea of sacrifice, not sacrifice itself since the sacrificer in your example is dead after the fact. The fact that John valued the continutation of his sons' lives more than his own is the essence of his sacrifice, not the reason we should claim that the act is not a sacrifice.

You can't just run around substantially changing the meanings of words in order to invalidate them.

At no point did I attempt to butcher the English language. I placed that quote to rationalize how what your saying makes sense. I don't see how it does, nor how your current reply is even a rebuttal.

---

That's completely an illogical standpoint, all decisions factually cause an emotional response and/or a physical response...

That doesn't demonstrate that said response is rewarding to the individual.

Are instinctive behaviours rewarding in other animals - lions for example? How far does it go? Does the termite feel reward for following the pheromone instuctions of its queen?

Now if you were to show that the serotonin levels (or equivalent) in the brains of the Orca's concerned rose when they were feeding Stumpy you'd have something.

Right now we have multiple individuals from multiple pods working one day at a time to keep Stumpy alive and we don't know why. It looks like altruism is all we can say.

You didn't read the original post clearly, anything you're attempting to rebuttal is covered within it. If you need clarification please ask.

[Anomalocaris]

.....Large amount of letters ....

No. The only reason why organics function is their functions do not kill them directly or indirectly, before they pass on their genes. That's it. There are all sorts of things going on in your body which do not help you. They just happen because they started happening once upon a time and never weeded themselves out by killing your ancesters. How is that for selfish?

"Selfish" is an unwarranted anthropamorphizing of complex, none-goal directed process.

[x2theone2x]

.....Large amount of letters ....

No. The only reason why organics function is their functions do not kill them directly or indirectly, before they pass on their genes. That's it. There are all sorts of things going on in your body which do not help you. They just happen because they started happening once upon a time and never weeded themselves out by killing your ancesters. How is that for selfish?

"Selfish" is an unwarranted anthropamorphizing of complex, none-goal directed process.

Thank you for your post, it's actually been the best rebuttal so far in my opinion. What your post has given to me is that I have to give the definitions of the terms I'm using in the original post to better convey my point. I would disagree with "your" definition of selfishness though. Everything is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function, even if that goal lasts for one second, is discarded, or altered. One major flaw of your argument is " before they have passed on their genes" that makes me assume some major change in reasoning occurs after that point. I don't see that, if that is truly what you were trying to convey.

[Anomalocaris]

No. The only reason why organics function is their functions do not kill them directly or indirectly, before they pass on their genes. That's it. There are all sorts of things going on in your body which do not help you. They just happen because they started happening once upon a time and never weeded themselves out by killing your ancesters. How is that for selfish?

"Selfish" is an unwarranted anthropamorphizing of complex, none-goal directed process.

Thank you for your post, it's actually been the best rebuttal so far in my opinion. What your post has given to me is that I have to give the definitions of the terms I'm using in the original post to better convey my point. I would disagree with "your" definition of selfishness though. Everything is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function, even if that goal lasts for one second, is discarded, or altered. One major flaw of your argument is " before they have passed on their genes" that makes me assume some major change in reasoning occurs after that point. I don't see that, if that is truly what you were trying to convey.

I disagree with your characterization "Everything is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function".

In fact absolutely nothing is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function. Every function arose by chance and remains until it is weeded out. All your functions are just chances that has not yet had the chance to be weeded out.

Selfishness is a distinctly goal related concept. Goal is an abstract human psychological concept. It is widely misused to mentally model non-goal directed process not because it is a good analogy, but because most people are equipped to deal with this analogy.

People feel better about being able to do a job if they feel can use a familiar tool to do the job. Once they are swinging a familiar tool are easily pursuaded to accept whatever the tool produced as being equivalent to the job being done, even if the tool is totally inappropirate and incapable of really doing the original job for which they picked up the tool.

[x2theone2x]

Thank you for your post, it's actually been the best rebuttal so far in my opinion. What your post has given to me is that I have to give the definitions of the terms I'm using in the original post to better convey my point. I would disagree with "your" definition of selfishness though. Everything is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function, even if that goal lasts for one second, is discarded, or altered. One major flaw of your argument is " before they have passed on their genes" that makes me assume some major change in reasoning occurs after that point. I don't see that, if that is truly what you were trying to convey.

I disagree with your characterization "Everything is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function".

In fact absolutely nothing is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function. Every function arose by chance and remains until it is weeded out. All your functions are just chances that has not yet had the chance to be weeded out.

Selfishness is a distinctly goal related concept. Goal is an abstract human psychological concept. It is widely misused to mentally model non-goal directed process not because it is a good analogy, but because most people are equipped to deal with this analogy.

People feel better about being able to do a job if they feel can use a familiar tool to do the job. Once they are swinging a familiar tool are easily pursuaded to accept whatever the tool produced as being equivalent to the job being done, even if the tool is totally inappropirate and incapable of really doing the original job for which they picked up the tool.

Human Buffer systems and Human Compensation systems work to balance anions, cations, Ph, and other aspects of the Human body. These systems are factual functions and can only work when given the opportunity to, this "tool" won't work in any other case. I do agree that everything arose by "chance" otherwise probability, that doesn't mean when it's brought into fruition it doesn't have a function. It could lose its function, adapt, dismiss, etc. The lack of function may even be function by proxy.

I already dissected the rest of what you said.

[Anomalocaris]

I disagree with your characterization "Everything is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function".

In fact absolutely nothing is to accomplish a goal when it comes to the human function. Every function arose by chance and remains until it is weeded out. All your functions are just chances that has not yet had the chance to be weeded out.

Selfishness is a distinctly goal related concept. Goal is an abstract human psychological concept. It is widely misused to mentally model non-goal directed process not because it is a good analogy, but because most people are equipped to deal with this analogy.

People feel better about being able to do a job if they feel can use a familiar tool to do the job. Once they are swinging a familiar tool are easily pursuaded to accept whatever the tool produced as being equivalent to the job being done, even if the tool is totally inappropirate and incapable of really doing the original job for which they picked up the tool.

Human Buffer systems and Human Compensation systems work to balance anions, cations, Ph, and other aspects of the Human body. These systems are factual functions and can only work when given the opportunity to, this "tool" won't work in any other case. I do agree that everything arose by "chance" otherwise probability, that doesn't mean when it's brought into fruition it doesn't have a function. It could lose its function, adapt, dismiss, etc. The lack of function may even be function by proxy.

I already dissected the rest of what you said.

Function requires a design. What everything in human has is is not function, for none of them are deseigned. They have properties which facilitates their interact in an undesigned system that involves much more than the human itself, but everything with which parts of the human can interact. They are no more selfish then a oxygen atom is selfish when combining with two hydrogen atoms to form water.

You are confusing outcome with intention.

[x2theone2x]

Human Buffer systems and Human Compensation systems work to balance anions, cations, Ph, and other aspects of the Human body. These systems are factual functions and can only work when given the opportunity to, this "tool" won't work in any other case. I do agree that everything arose by "chance" otherwise probability, that doesn't mean when it's brought into fruition it doesn't have a function. It could lose its function, adapt, dismiss, etc. The lack of function may even be function by proxy.

I already dissected the rest of what you said.

Function requires a design. What everything in human has is is not function, for none of them are deseigned. They have properties which facilitates their interact in an undesigned system that involves much more than the human itself, but everything with which parts of the human can interact. They are no more selfish then a oxygen atom is selfish when combining with two hydrogen atoms to form water.

You are confusing outcome with intention.

Why do you assume function requires design, and it doesn't even matter as any basic evolution lecture will tell you that it acts like design. The watch makers argument here isn't going to work for you... The human heart developed to aid the human, take that heart and place into another mammal and it most likely won't work. The reason why we still have vestigial organs is due to evolution, or the framework of evolution to not get rid of that coding in case we may need it in the future. We are referring to organics here not atoms or molecules. I am not confusing "perceived" outcome with intention, both are directly required in the decision making process in humans.

[Sword of Christ]

It depends on the level of sentient awareness the "organics" possess the more intelligent specimens can perform acts of true altruism as demonstrated here.