When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain/.
-
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it. It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*? To share their DNA? Maybe. That infinitesimal chance is the reason why I'm not a total arse to the Fairer Sex. But, of course, it isn't really about the DNA there.. Sounds rather selfish, cold and calculating to me though. And since it there is some benefit (though unfortunately non-material and therefore less important), and since it is also partly "hardwired behaviour", it isn't really the answer to the question. What other reasons are there? * probably bad grammar; I just woke up and I cba to look it up.
harold aptroot wrote:
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it.
A little, but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim, I am just asking you to explain how it can be, when I know good is done by people.
harold aptroot wrote:
It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*?
I'm the wrong person to ask that of. While I know the stupid and selfish reasons I do somethings, I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me. The "share the DNA" I was talking about is not getting laid. Most people are just as happy doing that if they don't have to _worry_ about actually sharing DNA, every time. Altruism functions evolutionarily by increasing the chance of your parents, or their parents, genes getting passed on.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it.
A little, but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim, I am just asking you to explain how it can be, when I know good is done by people.
harold aptroot wrote:
It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*?
I'm the wrong person to ask that of. While I know the stupid and selfish reasons I do somethings, I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me. The "share the DNA" I was talking about is not getting laid. Most people are just as happy doing that if they don't have to _worry_ about actually sharing DNA, every time. Altruism functions evolutionarily by increasing the chance of your parents, or their parents, genes getting passed on.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me.
So, can you give me any examples of such silly behaviour?
RichardM1 wrote:
Altruism functions evolutionarily
This still sounds very questionable to me. If it's an instinctive evolutionary imperative, then it's not even conscious behaviour. In effect, "You" are not doing it, your instincts betray you and do it for you. That is part of their job. So if this is all the "altruism" there is, and that appears to be the case, then true altruism (following the wikipedia definition) doesn't exist, even if the weak form of altruism does. Whether or not altruism exists at all is then merely a matter of definition.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it.
A little, but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim, I am just asking you to explain how it can be, when I know good is done by people.
harold aptroot wrote:
It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*?
I'm the wrong person to ask that of. While I know the stupid and selfish reasons I do somethings, I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me. The "share the DNA" I was talking about is not getting laid. Most people are just as happy doing that if they don't have to _worry_ about actually sharing DNA, every time. Altruism functions evolutionarily by increasing the chance of your parents, or their parents, genes getting passed on.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim
Yes, and I will continue making it until I have evidence to the contrary, because it just makes sense. I follow the simple decision-making "algorithm":
// calculates whether you should do something.
// true means "do it", false means "don't do it"
// both "calculate" functions try to estimate the long-term effect the best they can.
bool MakeDecision(Action A)
{
return CalculateBenefit(A) > CalculateCost(A);
}Where the function CalculateBenefit is supposed to be purely objective, but in practice it isn't and some "emotion"-crap may play a role. Anyone with any sense follows this "algorithm", because it results in the highest expected benefit/cost ratio. With their conscious decisions anyway; instinct is a treacherous bastard and will stab you in the back whenever it can. If there is no benefit, the cost is always higher than the benefit. "True" altruism (following the wikipedia definition) is not supposed to result in benefit. Since the cost can not be negative, it will always be greater or equal to the benefit, making the result
false. Therefore, no one with any sense will ever do something truly altruistic. QED. -
You can only do good on purpose for what you perceive as good. Otherwise, you just did something, and someone else thought it was good. No altruism there. Same with bad. You can only do it on purpose if you know you are doing it. Doctors used to think they were doing good when they lobotomized. :-D Yes on Pearl Harbor. I'm not saying everything the US ever does is self sacrificial. This started because fat_boy said _nothing_ the US does is for anything but material gain, and I dispute that.
peterchen wrote:
While I agree with the notion, it's the perfect recipe for a deadlock.
I don't think so, if both sides are honest about it. If not, it wasn't going to go anywhere, anyway.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Ah if only it was easier to tell good from evil! The same could be said about the russians, or the east german leaders: they did what they perceived as good. No more than that: I've lived both, and I'd vote for the west, too: because they make it possible (maybe not much easier) to get "away from it all".
RichardM1 wrote:
Doctors used to think they were doing good when they lobotomized
Seemed to work better than electric shocks :rolleyes:
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't think so, if both sides are honest about it.
Best would be everyone just starts being better - or at least stops making it worse.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
RichardM1 wrote:
I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me.
So, can you give me any examples of such silly behaviour?
RichardM1 wrote:
Altruism functions evolutionarily
This still sounds very questionable to me. If it's an instinctive evolutionary imperative, then it's not even conscious behaviour. In effect, "You" are not doing it, your instincts betray you and do it for you. That is part of their job. So if this is all the "altruism" there is, and that appears to be the case, then true altruism (following the wikipedia definition) doesn't exist, even if the weak form of altruism does. Whether or not altruism exists at all is then merely a matter of definition.
harold aptroot wrote:
So, can you give me any examples of such silly behaviour?
Giving up breakfast to an out of work guy who is sitting at a corner with a sign. Giving up a seat on the bus to someone who needs it more. Make sure the people working under you get credit, with those above you, for what they do. Stay there for a minute more to hold the door open for someone. Help people who need it, or who could just use it. Is this stuff foreign to you? Really? Is it an EU thing that people don't help each other? Do you just expect the state to take care of people, so you can ignore them?
harold aptroot wrote:
This still sounds very questionable to me.
Hey, I don't come up with this crap! Well, I didn't come up with _this_ crap. This is part of evolutionary biology. Right out of Scientific American, in the last 10-15 years.
harold aptroot wrote:
So if this is all the "altruism" there is
It is not. I was showing the evolutionary basis. That leads to pushing people out of the way of a bus and jumping on grenades. Instinctual, immediate reactions. All of the thought out activities are not from instinct.
harold aptroot wrote:
Whether or not altruism exists at all is then merely a matter of definition.
WTF??? Whether or not the moon exists at all is just a matter of definition. After all, everyone knows the moon is made out of green cheese, and that ball of rock in the sky is not made of green cheese! You don't play silly semantic games with whether selfless means "you have to not know it's good, and you can't feel good about doing it", and then say "Well, it's all just definition". "Weak" vs "strong". That is pretty much pathetic, man.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim
Yes, and I will continue making it until I have evidence to the contrary, because it just makes sense. I follow the simple decision-making "algorithm":
// calculates whether you should do something.
// true means "do it", false means "don't do it"
// both "calculate" functions try to estimate the long-term effect the best they can.
bool MakeDecision(Action A)
{
return CalculateBenefit(A) > CalculateCost(A);
}Where the function CalculateBenefit is supposed to be purely objective, but in practice it isn't and some "emotion"-crap may play a role. Anyone with any sense follows this "algorithm", because it results in the highest expected benefit/cost ratio. With their conscious decisions anyway; instinct is a treacherous bastard and will stab you in the back whenever it can. If there is no benefit, the cost is always higher than the benefit. "True" altruism (following the wikipedia definition) is not supposed to result in benefit. Since the cost can not be negative, it will always be greater or equal to the benefit, making the result
false. Therefore, no one with any sense will ever do something truly altruistic. QED.harold aptroot wrote:
instinct is a treacherous bastard and will stab you in the back whenever it can.
No, instinct is 100ks to 1Ms of years of evolutionary pressure. I'm supposed to be the nut fundamental Christian, you are supposed to be the rational man who understands where this stuff comes from. Instinct is a subtle and tricky thing, but if it were a treacherous bastard who stabbed you in the back, evolution would be BS, or else humans would never have survived.
harold aptroot wrote:
"True" altruism (following the wikipedia definition) is not supposed to result in benefit.
[much rolling of eyes, sarcasm and laughing] You are parsing the language like a liberal lawyer reading the constitution, pulling abortion out of unreasonable search and seizure. Altruism is doing something for no material benefit. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not an encyclopedia, though it is used that way. I can go in and write "altruism means purple". Wikipedia is a place to get an overview, and a place to find links to real sources, if you are lucky. It is not authoritative. Didn't your Mom ever teach you that? :-D OK, I see your problem. You are using the wrong algorithm. Here is the right one. You were effectively returning MAX_DOUBLE for CalculateCostMultiplier.
bool MakeDecision(Action A, Person B)
{
Cost cost = CalculateCost(A);
return (CalculateBenefit(A) > cost)||
(B.CalculateBenefit(A) > CalculateCostMultiplier(B)*cost)
}I believe you use the algorithm you mentioned, based on your comments. Please don't limit everyone else to your way of doing things. And what does Quantum Electo-Dynamics got to do with this? QCD right at you.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
instinct is a treacherous bastard and will stab you in the back whenever it can.
No, instinct is 100ks to 1Ms of years of evolutionary pressure. I'm supposed to be the nut fundamental Christian, you are supposed to be the rational man who understands where this stuff comes from. Instinct is a subtle and tricky thing, but if it were a treacherous bastard who stabbed you in the back, evolution would be BS, or else humans would never have survived.
harold aptroot wrote:
"True" altruism (following the wikipedia definition) is not supposed to result in benefit.
[much rolling of eyes, sarcasm and laughing] You are parsing the language like a liberal lawyer reading the constitution, pulling abortion out of unreasonable search and seizure. Altruism is doing something for no material benefit. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not an encyclopedia, though it is used that way. I can go in and write "altruism means purple". Wikipedia is a place to get an overview, and a place to find links to real sources, if you are lucky. It is not authoritative. Didn't your Mom ever teach you that? :-D OK, I see your problem. You are using the wrong algorithm. Here is the right one. You were effectively returning MAX_DOUBLE for CalculateCostMultiplier.
bool MakeDecision(Action A, Person B)
{
Cost cost = CalculateCost(A);
return (CalculateBenefit(A) > cost)||
(B.CalculateBenefit(A) > CalculateCostMultiplier(B)*cost)
}I believe you use the algorithm you mentioned, based on your comments. Please don't limit everyone else to your way of doing things. And what does Quantum Electo-Dynamics got to do with this? QCD right at you.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
No, instinct is 100ks to 1Ms of years of evolutionary pressure.
It amounts to the same thing. Your instincts do not care about you. They care about reproducing, because that's the kind of instinct that survives down the generations. They may therefore stab you in the back - risking your life to save your children has no benefit for you, but your instincts may betray you. Instincts stabbing you in the back is precisely how we survived as a species. Really man? The "it's wikipedia and therefore untrue" argument is something teachers use to make it hard for you to actually find something. Enough people check that site for the contents to make sense most of the time. And who is this person B and why should you care about their benefit? Their benefit is not yours, so... whatever?
RichardM1 wrote:
And what does Quantum Electo-Dynamics got to do with this? QCD right at you.
Right.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
So, can you give me any examples of such silly behaviour?
Giving up breakfast to an out of work guy who is sitting at a corner with a sign. Giving up a seat on the bus to someone who needs it more. Make sure the people working under you get credit, with those above you, for what they do. Stay there for a minute more to hold the door open for someone. Help people who need it, or who could just use it. Is this stuff foreign to you? Really? Is it an EU thing that people don't help each other? Do you just expect the state to take care of people, so you can ignore them?
harold aptroot wrote:
This still sounds very questionable to me.
Hey, I don't come up with this crap! Well, I didn't come up with _this_ crap. This is part of evolutionary biology. Right out of Scientific American, in the last 10-15 years.
harold aptroot wrote:
So if this is all the "altruism" there is
It is not. I was showing the evolutionary basis. That leads to pushing people out of the way of a bus and jumping on grenades. Instinctual, immediate reactions. All of the thought out activities are not from instinct.
harold aptroot wrote:
Whether or not altruism exists at all is then merely a matter of definition.
WTF??? Whether or not the moon exists at all is just a matter of definition. After all, everyone knows the moon is made out of green cheese, and that ball of rock in the sky is not made of green cheese! You don't play silly semantic games with whether selfless means "you have to not know it's good, and you can't feel good about doing it", and then say "Well, it's all just definition". "Weak" vs "strong". That is pretty much pathetic, man.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Is this stuff foreign to you? Really?
Yes actually. Who really does that stuff? You?
RichardM1 wrote:
That is pretty much pathetic, man.
You're allowed to have that opinion. Seriously though, it all seems to come down to whether you think wikipedia is crap or not.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Is this stuff foreign to you? Really?
Yes actually. Who really does that stuff? You?
RichardM1 wrote:
That is pretty much pathetic, man.
You're allowed to have that opinion. Seriously though, it all seems to come down to whether you think wikipedia is crap or not.
harold aptroot wrote:
Yes actually. Who really does that stuff? You?
Yes, actually, I do. Not all the time, I'm a saint, but I'm no Saint. :)
harold aptroot wrote:
Seriously though, it all seems to come down to whether you think wikipedia is crap or not.
It comes down to whether you think wiki is canonical or not.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Is this stuff foreign to you? Really?
Yes actually. Who really does that stuff? You?
RichardM1 wrote:
That is pretty much pathetic, man.
You're allowed to have that opinion. Seriously though, it all seems to come down to whether you think wikipedia is crap or not.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is pretty much pathetic, man.
So you understand, I was referring to the argument. Argument aside. Religion aside. Even America, EU aside. We are clearly from different world views. You can't see that altruism happens. I do it and see it, daily. I think you believe your definition, are not just arguing it. I am the same. I don't know how to reconcile that. I'm a hard over right wing nut gun owning capitalist conservative. But I believe in random acts of kindness and systematic acts of charity.
Winston Churchill:
We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
No, instinct is 100ks to 1Ms of years of evolutionary pressure.
It amounts to the same thing. Your instincts do not care about you. They care about reproducing, because that's the kind of instinct that survives down the generations. They may therefore stab you in the back - risking your life to save your children has no benefit for you, but your instincts may betray you. Instincts stabbing you in the back is precisely how we survived as a species. Really man? The "it's wikipedia and therefore untrue" argument is something teachers use to make it hard for you to actually find something. Enough people check that site for the contents to make sense most of the time. And who is this person B and why should you care about their benefit? Their benefit is not yours, so... whatever?
RichardM1 wrote:
And what does Quantum Electo-Dynamics got to do with this? QCD right at you.
Right.
harold aptroot wrote:
They may therefore stab you in the back - risking your life to save your children has no benefit for you, but your instincts may betray you.
Well, Harold, I'm at a loss. Religion aside, it is clear that we have totally different world views. I don't consider helping people who can't pay me back to be of no benefit. I think it the right thing to do, to look out for other people. It's clear you are on the "I got mine", "what's in it for me" group. Was "Wall street" the name of the movie where the catch phrase is "Greed is good"? "Materialistic, greedy, capitalist Americans" is the only connection I get between Europe and how you describe things.
harold aptroot wrote:
Enough people check that site for the contents to make sense most of the time.
You are over blowing what I said. I use Wikipedia all the time, for research. But it isn't canonical, not to where you can parse out stuff like you are doing.
harold aptroot wrote:
And who is this person B and why should you care about their benefit? Their benefit is not yours, so... whatever?
"B" is a variable. The value of the object effects the multiplier. When "B" is my wife, I value the cost to her very much. When "B" is hungry and stuck on the street, not as much, but still much. When "B" is some prick in a Porsche, with vain vanity plates, blowing through traffic, cutting people off, wanting me to get out of his way when there are no holes in traffic, the multiplier goes to infinity, the value of their benefit goes to zero. I should have put the multiplier on "B"'s benefit. That would have shown as a value of the person, not an inverse value.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
They may therefore stab you in the back - risking your life to save your children has no benefit for you, but your instincts may betray you.
Well, Harold, I'm at a loss. Religion aside, it is clear that we have totally different world views. I don't consider helping people who can't pay me back to be of no benefit. I think it the right thing to do, to look out for other people. It's clear you are on the "I got mine", "what's in it for me" group. Was "Wall street" the name of the movie where the catch phrase is "Greed is good"? "Materialistic, greedy, capitalist Americans" is the only connection I get between Europe and how you describe things.
harold aptroot wrote:
Enough people check that site for the contents to make sense most of the time.
You are over blowing what I said. I use Wikipedia all the time, for research. But it isn't canonical, not to where you can parse out stuff like you are doing.
harold aptroot wrote:
And who is this person B and why should you care about their benefit? Their benefit is not yours, so... whatever?
"B" is a variable. The value of the object effects the multiplier. When "B" is my wife, I value the cost to her very much. When "B" is hungry and stuck on the street, not as much, but still much. When "B" is some prick in a Porsche, with vain vanity plates, blowing through traffic, cutting people off, wanting me to get out of his way when there are no holes in traffic, the multiplier goes to infinity, the value of their benefit goes to zero. I should have put the multiplier on "B"'s benefit. That would have shown as a value of the person, not an inverse value.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Yea I thought that inverse value thingy was kinda odd, but then I though "oh well why not, the math works out" As to the rest, I don't believe there's much point in continuing this conversation..
I agree, but it has been a good one. I appreciate the effort you put into it and the crap you were willing to take from me. I figured everyone did altruism to some extent, so I learned about how other people see things. [tips hat]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
GO back to its founding days. Samuel Adams, Boston traders/marketeers/smugglers, dress up as natives, and attack British ships carrying tea to: 1) Protect their market 2) To try to break the treaty between the British and the native americans; a treaty that guaranteed that the interior of the US would not come under British control. Then I thought of the Ford whats its name with the exploding fuel tank, the copany decided it was cheaper to pay out for deaths than to fix the design. The Iraq war, whose sole intent was to secure an oil supply. When one realises how close US government is to US big business is there anything the US has done that ISNT for menetary gain and prompted by business interests?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
When one realises how close US government is to US big business is there anything the US has done that ISNT for menetary gain and prompted by business interests?
The US does more for information control than "monetary" gain and this has been the case since they became a "Super Power". This is more often than not to protect its status and people. Granted, information can acheive monetary gain but that does not mean that is why the information is pursued (just as any other action gaining indirect monetary gain).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.