This illustrates why I consider it so important to understand that everything boils down to self interest and there is no objective forms of morality, meaning, purpose, etc. It becomes significantly more difficult to fall into the group think trap when you consciously understand that every decision you make, every opinion you hold, is ultimately based purely on your own subjective interpretation of the data you have available at the time and the goals and ambitions you hold.
It's not impossible of course, buit it is more difficult when you just embrace and own your own biases and hypocrisies. People and learned over thousands of years that there's a massive advantage tin manipulating people to believe that this isn't the case. Once you have someone believing that there's an objective form of morality, for example, it's not too hard to then get them to believe that its the version you tell them it is. Societies are typically run by individualists embracing their own self interest and the chaos of life telling everyone else that those things are evil, thus limiting competition and making others into collectivists and little more than willing and willfully ignorant pawns for their masters.
(2020-02-02, 06:16 PM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]Societies are typically run by individualists embracing their own self interest ....
I agree. While trying to understand what causes a person to begin consciously seeking spiritual maturity, I first landed on the idea that we have an inherited urge to find a greater understanding of the nature of our reality. I figured that was our spiritual instinct.
I still think we exist to gain understanding through experience. But now I think we are having those experiences in the physical so as to enable us to learn how to manage our human's instincts.
In the logical expression of dualism, our conscious self is entangled with our human avatar during the avatar's lifetime. The likely place entanglement occurs is in our perception-expression function which is informed by worldview. It would be in our worldview ... learned truths, memory, instincts and cultural contamination ... that our spiritual instincts and our human's instincts are supposed to combine to inform our perception and expression.
It is pretty clear that at birth, it is our human's instincts that dominate. As we mature, our "higher nature" begins to be more influential. For most of us, that never really happens. Not being a psychologists, I will nevertheless venture a guess that 99% of our population remains almost entirely guided by human instincts.
Sometimes this dominance is hard to notice. But consider the altruistic giving of a rich person. If that giving serves to increase the person's popularity, and therefore influence, the act is likely guided by the genetic predisposition to assure continuity of personal genes ... often at the cost of competing gene pools.
In this sense, I think human nature is something to be compensated for. Since people seldom have the presence of mind to do so, it is necessary to impose external controls.
Even if my logic is wrong, the effect reasonably reflects our situation. We have a
Lord of the Flies-kind of society in which our identity is masked by our affiliation with a group we hope will dominate and help further our gene pool. Spiritual and social education, the rule of laws and tightly regulated law enforcement seems our only way forward.
(2020-02-02, 07:36 PM)Tom Butler Wrote: [ -> ]In this sense, I think human nature is something to be compensated for. Since people seldom have the presence of mind to do so, it is necessary to impose external controls.
Absent objective morality as Mediochre postulates, why would it be necessary to impose external controls? To allow men to be controlled by their animal instincts is just as good as the opposite, and if we are inherently only self interested, then it may be in our self interest to increase the ignorance of our fellow man towards their 'higher' instincts.
(2020-02-02, 06:16 PM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]This illustrates why I consider it so important to understand that everything boils down to self interest
How do you explain altruistic acts within animals such as the one mentioned in this article?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...l-altruism
Is it really so impossible to include the possibility of altruism in your worldview?
(2020-02-03, 07:30 AM)letseat Wrote: [ -> ]How do you explain altruistic acts within animals such as the one mentioned in this article? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...l-altruism
Is it really so impossible to include the possibility of altruism in your worldview?
The article itself provides the answer:
Quote:Activity in emotional brain structures like the amygdala, insula, and striatum, support empathy, which is the ability to understand when others are in need or distress, and caring, which is the desire to alleviate that state. These processes may suffice to motivate altruism in humans and non-humans alike. Our own research has linked variations in the size and activity of the amygdala to empathic sensitivity and extraordinary acts of human altruism, like donating a kidney to a stranger. The amygdala has also been linked to prosocial behavior in bonobos and rats.
In other words, the emotion hit and/or the removal of emotional discomfort is the reward. If those things\ didn't happen, you wouldn't see the behaviour, its that simple. It's an incredibly well understood aspect of psychology across species, if you lesion the brains of monkeys so they stop feeling fear, they do things they previously wouldn't, like handling poisonous snakes,. If you hook an electrode up to the pleasure center of a rats brain and connect that to a lever, it'll push that lever until it dies, which other rats who don't get that hit of good feelings will not do. If compulsions like that counts as altruism, then I guess taking heroine must be spiritual.
The better question though,is why isn't that enough for people? What, do they need the universe to pat them on the head and tell them they're a good boy before its worth doing things? The desire to defend altruism itself demonstrates that it doesn't really exist.
I am not scholastically equipped to give you an intelligent response. The passage you quoted is based on the mind is produced by brain argument. I agree that there are apparent physiological changes associated with mental changes, but all of my reading indicates that is a cursory relationship.
The brain = mind model appears to fail when such characteristics as nonlocality and noncontact acquisition of information are considered. It completely fails when it comes to psychokinesis.
Clearly there is a mind-brain relationship. In the dualistic model, it is necessary to have a physical-nonphysical interface for the mind to impress movement commands on the body. Conversely, there must be a means by which signals from the body's senses are interfaced to mind.
I submit that the article you cited leans on an incomplete model.
(2020-02-03, 07:33 PM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]The article itself provides the answer:
In other words, the emotion hit and/or the removal of emotional discomfort is the reward. If those things\ didn't happen, you wouldn't see the behaviour, its that simple. It's an incredibly well understood aspect of psychology across species, if you lesion the brains of monkeys so they stop feeling fear, they do things they previously wouldn't, like handling poisonous snakes,. If you hook an electrode up to the pleasure center of a rats brain and connect that to a lever, it'll push that lever until it dies, which other rats who don't get that hit of good feelings will not do. If compulsions like that counts as altruism, then I guess taking heroine must be spiritual.
The better question though,is why isn't that enough for people? What, do they need the universe to pat them on the head and tell them they're a good boy before its worth doing things? The desire to defend altruism itself demonstrates that it doesn't really exist.
Its an argument certainly but it falls short of being a definitive response in my view. Considering how little we actually understand about consciousness I would consider it premature to declare altruism as solely an emergent property of brain matter.
The brain matter part is irrelevant. What matters is the emotional hit. I could just as easily use variations in reported nde scenarios.