The only reason why organics function is for selfish benefit

[x2theone2x]

I've held this view on human behavior for years now, and the people who I attempt to convey it to usually label me as a stark pessimistic; however, I've never had anyone tell me I'm wrong after explaining it thoroughly. I label this human behavioral concept: Benefitionalism.

The primary principals of Benefitionalism:

There is no such thing as an organic doing a selfless act: The main idea around that statement is that we so everything for our own benefit, be it emotional or physical. Let me give an example: Someone's grandparent is on their death bed in a hospital. This individual goes to console them in their last days as what many would label as a kind, and maybe even selfless act. What does this individual give to his grandparent and what does he take? He gives console, but that console never reaches his grandfather, and this idea will be explained in another principle further on. The individual takes everything from the situation surrounding his grandfather, be it emotional or physical. While the individual stays with the grandparent, he/she maintains a constant emotional benefit throughout. This emotional benefit could stem from societal norms which would dictate it is a great deed to do this for someone on their death bed, or possibly it was due to other people doing it and the individual wanted to fit in. In any case, their is no such thing selfless act.

Subsection to this principle: Emotional benefit may be perceivable in the future, that "hope" (which is an emotional benefit, but inconsistent) can drive someone to perform actions for prolonged periods of time before gaining a constant emotional stimuli from it.

Regret: The thought tree related to regret is never a negative benefit. This may come as a surprise to some people, but let me fully describe what I'm saying. We will be going back to the previous scenario for an example, but with major changes. The individual chooses not to go out of his way to console their grandparent, and after some time the individual starts feeling major regret(s) for that decision. He starts feeling depression, anxiety, self-hatred, etc. I'll go over why these feelings are in no way negative in another principle in the future. I'll go as far as saying someone who commits suicide is not doing so because of feeling negative, no, simply because they have a skewed, or rational (very subjective) view which equates that to a positive definitional decision, that will lead to a emotional benefit during or before the process of death.

The Take Give Give Take Principle: Organics only take from circumstances, and the give never reaches the other participant(s)

Human <-- Takes / Gives --> = <-- Gives / Takes --> Human

The gives can be thought of as heat released in a reaction.

How negatives are always positively "charged" principle: If an individual experiences depression, due to the consensus of our society that is inherently negative. If you follow a moral absolutes view, than yeah, it may be. If you follow a logical, rational moral nihilistic view. (Which proposes there are no natural right or wrongs, such things are created) than what I'm about to say makes sense. Also, remember the point of this Benefitionalism is to view an individual, and align his moral compass to the rational of his actions, or how he benefits. The depression would cause a person to either seek help, obtain a mental illness, deal with it, or end it. In any case the individuals subconscious has rationalized any of those decisions are the most rational, thus the most positive emotional, thus beneficial.

There is no such thing as free will principle: We are organic machines, identical to a computer, but different in objective. The freedom of choice you feel you have is illusory. Free will is based simply on the surrounding variables your brain has perceived through its various senses, and a rationalization of how you can benefit from them.

The subjective principle: Simply said: positives and negatives are subjectively perceived, but the actions of an individual were and always have been for their own benefit. An example: A cheater isn't sorry until their caught, it's a mechanism to combat possible deficit it positive physical or emotional gain.

That's all for now. I have notebooks full of this stuff, but this is the TL;DR version.

Discuss, Debate, Critique, Thanks.

[Cato]

At first I thought you were simply going to rationalize your position by providing possible selfish motivations for events that seem to be sacrifices, but then realized that you are foisting on us an untestable and unfalsifiable claim; namely, 'All subconcious decisions benefit the organism'.

Let's assume we could agree on a non-mortal event that qualifies as a sacrifice as generally understood by the term. Let's further imagine that the sacrificer tells us that he/she performed the act for unselfish reasons. Your only play at this point is to claim that this is a rationalization of the sacrificer's conscious, but in reality the sacrificer's subconcioius made the decision based on a benefit that you get to dictate.

You should probably give this more consideration.

[max-greece]

If there is no such thing as altruism then explain this one to me:

http://www.freemorgan.org/wp-content/upl..._orca1.pdf

[x2theone2x]

If there is no such thing as altruism then explain this one to me:

http://www.freemorgan.org/wp-content/upl..._orca1.pdf

If you read my original post how would it not be simple to connect that with what you posted? I'll do it once I get back from university.

In response to Cato, by subconscious I mean all autonomic branches of the nervous system. That is how subconscious is defined in our textbooks. Very testable, very reliably tested at some point. Sorry for using the lingo most likely associated with my university.

[bennyboy]

Won't read due to retarded formatting. When introducing text-walls, deliberately making them harder to read by using non-standard formatting or fonts is a good way not to get taken seriously.

[Cato]

If you read my original post how would it not be simple to connect that with what you posted? I'll do it once I get back from university.

In response to Cato, by subconscious I mean all autonomic branches of the nervous system. That is how subconscious is defined in our textbooks. Very testable, very reliably tested at some point. Sorry for using the lingo most likely associated with my university.

We are using the word subconscious the same way, I'm not sure why you gave a qualification.

You're going to have to be more specific. I don't know of any means by which we can extract 'intent' from measures of subconscious activity. I would love to understand how you think this is possible.

[x2theone2x]

Won't read due to retarded formatting. When introducing text-walls, deliberately making them harder to read by using non-standard formatting or fonts is a good way not to get taken seriously.

The formatting I used is near identical to any you would find on an information database??? Which is pretty average I would assume.

If you read my original post how would it not be simple to connect that with what you posted? I'll do it once I get back from university.

In response to Cato, by subconscious I mean all autonomic branches of the nervous system. That is how subconscious is defined in our textbooks. Very testable, very reliably tested at some point. Sorry for using the lingo most likely associated with my university.

We are using the word subconscious the same way, I'm not sure why you gave a qualification.

You're going to have to be more specific. I don't know of any means by which we can extract 'intent' from measures of subconscious activity. I would love to understand how you think this is possible.

I shouldn't have to have any means of measuring intent. because if the action occurred the intent was obviously there. If he did the action it factually cannot be selfish, they either gained emotionally or physically. I may not be able to comphrehend what you're asking or even trying to convey, as it seems what your asking was covered in my original post. If you think I'm incorrect on the interpretation of your post, please, reiterate.

If there is no such thing as altruism then explain this one to me:

http://www.freemorgan.org/wp-content/upl..._orca1.pdf

The other dolphins gain something either emotionally or physically from the transactions with "Stumpy". It's quite clear within the PDF you linked me, killer whales have very strict, close-knit family bonds. Therefore one example would be fulfilling the norm within their "society", but it could be for any number of reasons.

[Cato]

I shouldn't have to have any means of measuring intent. because if the action occurred the intent was obviously there. If he did the action it factually cannot be selfish, they either gained emotionally or physically. I may not be able to comphrehend what you're asking or even trying to convey, as it seems what your asking was covered in my original post. If you think I'm incorrect on the interpretation of your post, please, reiterate.

You must have some means of discovering intent; otherwise, you are just supporting your pet theory by decree. Science doesn't work that way, except perhaps in North Korea.

Also, identifying some possible emotional or physical benefit to an organism due to some event doesn't disqualify an action as sacrifice or bolster your position. It's the same as saying going to prison is good for you since you get three meals a day.

There are those out there that take moral psychology seriously. You should at least understand what the science says regarding self-sacrifice prior to expounding in a vain attempt to name a theory.

We rarely hear stories of people sacrificingothers in footbridge-types of situations, while acts of self-sacrifice, particularly in their extremeforms, are often a central theme in cultural myths, religious texts, historical records and newsreports.

http://www.academia.edu/1236961/The_Role..._Judgments

The authors of the linked paper went out of their way to cite 20 other works. Read through the titles of the references. At a minimum you should probably understand the work that has already been done and prevailing thoughts on the topic from people that actively work in the field.

[max-greece]

The other dolphins gain something either emotionally or physically from the transactions with "Stumpy". It's quite clear within the PDF you linked me, killer whales have very strict, close-knit family bonds. Therefore one example would be fulfilling the norm within their "society", but it could be for any number of reasons.

Well not really. Stumpy has changed pod at least 5 times with the same behaviour being observed in each. Whilst the original pod contained family members the later ones certainly do not (Orca's dont change group that often - certainly not 5 times as recorded).

The behaviour of other orca's towards stumpy could be for any number of reasons, sure, but one of those, and apparently the most likely, is altruism.

[x2theone2x]

The other dolphins gain something either emotionally or physically from the transactions with "Stumpy". It's quite clear within the PDF you linked me, killer whales have very strict, close-knit family bonds. Therefore one example would be fulfilling the norm within their "society", but it could be for any number of reasons.

Well not really. Stumpy has changed pod at least 5 times with the same behaviour being observed in each. Whilst the original pod contained family members the later ones certainly do not (Orca's dont change group that often - certainly not 5 times as recorded).

The behaviour of other orca's towards stumpy could be for any number of reasons, sure, but one of those, and apparently the most likely, is altruism.

That's completely an illogical standpoint, all decisions factually cause an emotional response and/or a physical response, thus altruism cannot exist. I don't even see how anyone could rationalize such a thing as existing.

---

I shouldn't have to have any means of measuring intent. because if the action occurred the intent was obviously there. If he did the action it factually cannot be selfish, they either gained emotionally or physically. I may not be able to comphrehend what you're asking or even trying to convey, as it seems what your asking was covered in my original post. If you think I'm incorrect on the interpretation of your post, please, reiterate.

You must have some means of discovering intent; otherwise, you are just supporting your pet theory by decree. Science doesn't work that way, except perhaps in North Korea.

Also, identifying some possible emotional or physical benefit to an organism due to some event doesn't disqualify an action as sacrifice or bolster your position. It's the same as saying going to prison is good for you since you get three meals a day.

There are those out there that take moral psychology seriously. You should at least understand what the science says regarding self-sacrifice prior to expounding in a vain attempt to name a theory.

We rarely hear stories of people sacrificingothers in footbridge-types of situations, while acts of self-sacrifice, particularly in their extremeforms, are often a central theme in cultural myths, religious texts, historical records and newsreports.

http://www.academia.edu/1236961/The_Role..._Judgments

The authors of the linked paper went out of their way to cite 20 other works. Read through the titles of the references. At a minimum you should probably understand the work that has already been done and prevailing thoughts on the topic from people that actively work in the field.

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.