MFA fighter to get 10 years.....

Originally posted by Robtard
And a dolphin helping a creature not of it's own species, what would that be?

Excellent example.

One could argue that the programming causes cross species altruism. The more complex a species social skills, the complex the social interactions.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe altruism relies on something not being instinctual in terms of survival, as child-caring clearly is.

Cool. In this day in age, child-caring could be altruistic for one and not for another....there's some very selfish people out there who "straighten-up"....but we could argue programming again...and it starts over. So it really is word semantics.

Originally posted by Robtard
And a dolphin helping a creature not of it's own species, what would that be?

I believe altruism relies on something not being instinctual in terms of survival, as child-caring clearly is.

It could be a pack mentality thing maybe (just guessing)...?
Fear that if they dont take care of that shark mofo now, that it might be back to eat them or their young tommorrow...?
Stands to reason that genetic memory has maybe instilled a healthy respect/fear of sharks over the course of so many millions of years..

I assert none of this as fact, just it has me thinking as that is a good question. And I admit that I dont know enough about them to comment with any authority behind even an educated guess..

Originally posted by inimalist
pro-social behaviour?

just because there is no reward for the animal in a particular instance does not mean that the behaviour might not have a survival benefit for the genes that create it.

humans have a cultural tradition of separating the world of nature from their own, thus all forms of cruelties are enacted on animals with total moral inertness. Maybe dolphins do not have a formalized culture that forces them to not assist other animals (and that is dumb anyways, people have been caring for animals for thousands of years)

Not 100% certain what pro-social behavior is.

While possible, it could in turn not have a genetic root. Is it possible for true "altruism" to exist, or anything observed as altruistic, must have another underlying cause other than selflessness?

Mind you, I'm no expert and am not stating as fact, just curious.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not 100% certain what pro-social behavior is.

While possible, it could in turn not have a genetic root. Is it possible for true "altruism" to exist, or anything observed as altruistic, must have another underlying cause other than selflessness?

Mind you, I'm no expert and am not stating as fact, just curious.

I'm not really sure what selflessness is?

blah, we are getting to a point where my reductionism in understanding behaviour is going to be confusing.

I don't worry about altruism or things like that because they assume a large degree of volition in action, as if you are deciding to make a sacrifice to help someone as a thinking being, weighing all the available options, then acting.

I don't think we, or any animals, have that. It feels like we do, but imho most behaviour is completed before rationalizing it.

To me, pro-social behaviour (it is ambiguous, but basically behaviour that seems to benefit others and social interaction) is a result of those genes being selected for, and we do it because of those genetic drives. Almost on the surface, this view isn't really tenable with "can someone be selfless" because it assumes that all action is already motivated by the drives created by successfully reproduced genes, thus can be construed as being self driven.

I have no really good way to answer your question other than it being sort of moot to me, which I don't mean in a dismissive way, just that it seems too theoretical, even for me.

Not discussing anything you guys said, but you know that Dolphins are naturally psychopathic serial rape-murderers, right?

http://www.cracked.com/article_15853_6-cutest-animals-that-can-still-destroy-you.html

Look who made the first spot 😐

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not really sure what selflessness is?

blah, we are getting to a point where my reductionism in understanding behaviour is going to be confusing.

I don't worry about altruism or things like that because they assume a large degree of volition in action, as if you are deciding to make a sacrifice to help someone as a thinking being, weighing all the available options, then acting.

I don't think we, or any animals, have that. It feels like we do, but imho most behaviour is completed before rationalizing it.

I think that it depends how consciously contemplative/self aware you are as an individual.

Also I think an individual's emotion is a variable that can get overlooked as a variable in this "where does good come from" debate.

And what you do subconsciously also.

I mean, no matter if you were consciously debating it in your own mind or not, certain logic will uphold..

For example. My natural position might be to hold the door open for a person after me as a leave a shop.

But if that person has just revealed themselves to be abusive passively or aggressively, due to the due amount of emotion that might cause in me, it will bring the reasoning process it to the conscious mind. And it will have baring affect my decision on the door opening.

This wouldnt take away from my default mode of my original pro social behavior.

Genetics definitely do play a big part of how we function socially, as evidenced by the existance of people with Autism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not discussing anything you guys said, but you know that Dolphins are naturally psychopathic serial rape-murderers, right?

http://www.cracked.com/article_15853_6-cutest-animals-that-can-still-destroy-you.html

Look who made the first spot 😐

That was a great article. I'm serious. That was ****ing brilliant.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I think that it depends how consciously contemplative/self aware you are as an individual.

Also I think an individual's emotion is a variable that can get overlooked as a variable in this "where does good come from" debate.

And what you do subconsciously also.

I mean, no matter if you were consciously debating it in your own mind or not, certain logic will uphold..

For example. My natural position might be to hold the door open for a person after me as a leave a shop.

But if that person has just revealed themselves to be abusive passively or aggressively, due to the due amount of emotion that might cause in me, it will bring the reasoning process it to the conscious mind. And it will have baring affect my decision on the door opening.

This wouldnt take away from my default mode of my original pro social behavior.

Genetics definitely do play a big part of how we function socially, as evidenced by the existance of people with Autism.

indeed

but like the point I was trying to make, this is still not very reductionist. The more we reduce human consciousness (I'm talking about neuro pathways and stuff) the less important ideas like the self or will become.

my only point was that, in the way I understand human behaviour, we are currently talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Nowt wrong with a bit of that.

Thats what I assumed you meant... 'In the more Jungian sense'.

Seemed ironic that you were forced to use the phrase "The way I understand human behavior" while decrying the need for a view of the individual or 'self'. 😛

And it fits oddly with the earlier statement that some have better brains than others.

Ourselves is all we are and I predict we'll never not be conscious of that as a part of all those millions of years of evolution.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
That was a great article. I'm serious. That was ****ing brilliant.

Cracked tends to be.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nowt wrong with a bit of that.

Thats what I assumed you meant... 'In the more Jungian sense'.

shudder, lol, I hope not the Jungian sense 😉

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Seemed ironic that you were forced to use the phrase "The way I understand human behavior" while decrying the need for a view of the individual or 'self'. 😛

ya, it is a little lame. I could talk about the pathway between the Pons in my Basal Ganglia and the reciprocal pathway between it and the frontal cortex, but I'm already confused.

I'm not really decrying the "need" for an individual self, just that there is no "self" at the neuro level. That feeling is built up based on the underlying actions of locations within the brain. Behaviour, as it pertains to being described by the action of neurons, really doesn't have room for a self, or put better, does not show evidence of having a "self" component

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And it fits oddly with the earlier statement that some have better brains than others.

lol 🙂

I'm also not trying to say anything about personal awareness or anything like that. Like, I'm aware of the early workings of human vision, yet there is little to nothing I can do with that information. Someone with a better brain wouldn't be more able to become aware of their orientation detectors in the LGN than I, simply because the parts of the brain that are responsible for compiling our subjective experience of reality are dependent on those, and not the other way around.

I never know if this stuff makes sense when I say it....

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ourselves is all we are and I predict we'll never not be conscious of that as a part of all those millions of years of evolution.

yes, indeed, whatever "consciousness" is, we likely evolved it for a good reason and it probably isn't going anywhere. When you look at the activation of neurons and muscles in a paradigm trying to isolate the intention of movement however, the "conscious self" is nowhere to be seen.

man, what a crazy thread... how 'bout this, less neuroscience more shit on anarchy? 😛

😂 Yes its an ironic anarchy in it's own right..

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not discussing anything you guys said, but you know that Dolphins are naturally psychopathic serial rape-murderers, right?

http://www.cracked.com/article_15853_6-cutest-animals-that-can-still-destroy-you.html

Look who made the first spot 😐

Not all of them are, this made me giggle though: "the man was drunk, and was actively trying to shove a stick into the dolphin's blowhole at the time", serves that drunk fool right.

Need to made a sig out of this, too hilarious.

I wonder on the subject of things like self/or the soul etc being absent from biomechanics, what they'd say about morphic resonance/knowledge...?

'Cause that seems like something that is bloody hard to explain in just "what we can see" physical terms and I do wonder if it plays a part of learning this altruism lark..

A smart dude but i think the fact that he was so outrageously sentenced works in his favor. He may get put away but for nothing longer than 18 months.
This just proves the double standards that American law is built on, furthermore.
For a country supposedly "the land of the free", why is there even a "mischief" charge in the law books, and why is penalty so great.

No arguing there.

The sentence was way heavy handed.

Originally posted by bogen

For a country supposedly "the land of the free", why is there even a "mischief" charge in the law books, and why is penalty so great.

Free doesn't include "free to commit crimes", for obvious reasons. Mischief can/does mean "to cause harm", not just a slight annoyance.

America has illogical penalties for different crimes, it reallty makes no sense, you're right about that. It's unlikely he'll get the maximum sentence though.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I wonder on the subject of things like self/or the soul etc being absent from biomechanics, what they'd say about morphic resonance/knowledge...?

likely, it would look something akin to: http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
'Cause that seems like something that is bloody hard to explain in just "what we can see" physical terms and I do wonder if it plays a part of learning this altruism lark..

all I can say is that what you experience is not an accurate representation of reality.