The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[boagie]

Originally Posted by simon

Indeed. Yet if the motivation is seeing another happy, the arguament that the action is selfish becomes decidedly dodgy. How do you define selfish? Someone might state "I like seeing the people around me happy". You could state that they are a bad person because their motivation was purely to please themselves, yet if you were to ask for the definition of someoe who wasn't selfish you'd get exactly that, or an obscure reference to someone who didn't like people to be happy but did so anyway and had no idea why... Of course with any being that demonstrates a logical or reasoning ability this becomes rather unlikely...

Simon,

There is the moral judgement of the action, which is not what we are concerned with here, and there is what motivatives said action. It is always and without fail, the will behind the intent of action, so, the action fulfills the will, in and of itself it is thus first selfish, it satisfies an aspect of yourself to fulfill the action, to do the deed. You can judge of the morality of it later.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by boagie

How ever you get there, motivation proceeds action,

Not according to the results of Benjamin Libet's famous experimental results. Our 'actions' were shown to have been initiated by the brain prior to 'conscious intent/will', invariably, by a couple of jiffys (1/100sec!) at least!

Oops, sorry, I just noticed that you said 'motivation', and if your intended meaning for 'motivation' is other than 'will/intent', then.... never mind. *__-
('Motivation' can be centuries percolating before fruit is found.)
But if you actually meant 'will/intent', then...

Besides, nothing actually preceeds anything, all moments are, despite being counterintuitional, simultaneous, sybchronous.
I think that our language from the middle ages needs a serious update to catch up to modern understandings. Ducking stools are obsolete for a good reason!

[boagie]

Originally Posted by nameless

Not according to the results of Benjamin Libet's famous experimental results. Our 'actions' were shown to have been initiated by the brain prior to 'conscious intent/will', invariably, by a couple of jiffys (1/100sec!) at least!

Oops, sorry, I just noticed that you said 'motivation', and if your intended meaning for 'motivation' is other than 'will/intent', then.... never mind. *__-
('Motivation' can be centuries percolating before fruit is found.)
But if you actually meant 'will/intent', then...

Besides, nothing actually preceeds anything, all moments are, despite being counterintuitional, simultaneous, sybchronous.
I think that our language from the middle ages needs a serious update to catch up to modern understandings. Ducking stools are obsolete for a good reason!

Nameless,

Yes, I have heard of this, the firing of neurons nano-seconds before the stimulus is introduced---which would indicate still, reaction. There however has been nothing stated that I have heard, to further our knowledge in this area, neurology is today at the epi-centre of future philosophical considerations, we shall have to wait upon her, to light the way for further speculations.

Motivation can mean the very circumstance that is evaluated, and how one feels and understands it connotations, the ideas that arise as such are the material for the formation of intent. So, modivation is this said material, processed into the formation of intent, thus, a will to act is to satisfy said intent.

This busness of there being only one moment, that of eternity, the idea of a simultaneous arising are fine speculations, but, in philosophy one needs to stay somewhat grounded. It is fine to let ones imagination have free range, but, particulary in communication with others, if one does not touch the earth at regular intervals, one does a disservice to oneself as well as others. Obscurity is often taken as profound, until some idiot comes along and states, "The King Has No Clothes."

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by nameless

^^^ I think that 'will' is just another egoic (lie/fantasy) Pinoccio wanting to be (fantasizing that it is) a real boy.

Certainly will, as it is applied here, must exist. What do you propose causes action?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by nameless

boagie,
Is is not a reasonable hypothesis that as 'free-will' and 'choice' are no more than egoic fantasies, that 'will' is of the same 'ilk'? 'Will'? To 'do' what? There is no 'doing' but in appearances. The ego imagines 'authorship' of 'doing/universe'. We, as Perspectives, 'author' nothing, nor do or can we 'change what is. If we display the vanity of assuming 'authorship/creatorship', the vanity of 'will' must also be assumed.

(I'll trade you my 'wise apple' (take a bite and it makes you wise!) for your 'magic beans'?)

Will does not belong in that class.

The class you refer to belong to the fantasies that are tied to our identification with an "I" or a "me".

Will, on the other hand, need not be tied to freedom or our indentification with ourselves. It only requires volition, and while it reworks the idea of will, certainly there needs to be some will or collection of wills to stimulate action.

I think, my friend, that if you consider existence as a bunch of simultaneously 'existing' (Planck) moments, each quantumly discrete, like any still frame from a movie, you might better understand this perspective.
Who is 'responding'? Me! This Perspective.
Ahhh, the 'process'. 'Process' is an illusion of 'Perspective'. You look at the film frames from a certain perspective, linear and consecutively, and there appears motion. From that apparent motion, we posit 'processes'. That is an illusion. There are just static frames' of moments. The Magic of Perspective is what appears to give 'life' to the 'experience that is existence'. Wonderful magic! But all in mind as Perspective.

Will and perspective are different animals and certainly not mutually exclusive. In fact, you defeat this position yourself: If you say that you respond from your perspective you imply that one perspective can have the will to respond, or that there is a will holding entity that can respond.

Furthermore, you defeat your own argument as certainly the chain of perception that creates an illusion presupposes a real continuing perceiver and process of perception!

[nameless]

Originally Posted by boagie

Nameless,

Yes, I have heard of this, the firing of neurons nano-seconds before the stimulus is introduced---which would indicate still, reaction. There however has been nothing stated that I have heard, to further our knowledge in this area, neurology is today at the epi-centre of future philosophical considerations, we shall have to wait upon her, to light the way for further speculations.

Ok. I have my money on quantum theory (as the 'epicenter') to inform all other disciplines. 'Time' will tell...

Motivation can mean the very circumstance that is evaluated, and how one feels and understands it connotations, the ideas that arise as such are the material for the formation of intent. So, modivation is this said material, processed into the formation of intent, thus, a will to act is to satisfy said intent.

This busness of there being only one moment, that of eternity, the idea of a simultaneous arising are fine speculations, but, in philosophy one needs to stay somewhat grounded.

First, I said nothing of 'eternity'. That is no more than a meaningless sentimental poetic term, and I do not use it in my speech patterns.

The notion of synchronous quantumly discrete moments is science. Every scientific 'finding' informs philosophy. In isolation, philosophy is 'groundless' and floats away on its 'logic'. And without philosophy, well, science is skewed and truncated as has been demonstrated by the findings of quantum theory; empiricism (objectivity) indeed! Good riddance to that lie!

It is fine to let ones imagination have free range, but, particulary in communication with others, if one does not touch the earth at regular intervals, one does a disservice to oneself as well as others. Obscurity is often taken as profound, until some idiot comes along and states, "The King Has No Clothes."

Is this a gentle ad hominem attack? Wow! I've never felt such a gentle attack!
Are you patronizing me? Perhaps I see a wink and tongue in cheek? I think thats how i'll take it, as I have been enjoying the peaceful and 'respectful' nature of our communications.

"Truth undergoes three stages;
First it is ridiculed.
Second it is attacked (as is the messenger).
Third, everyone says that they "knew it all along"!"

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Certainly will, as it is applied here, must exist.

"Everything exists.
Existence is Context/Definition.
Everything that you can conceive, exists, in it's Context/Definition." -Book of Fudd (3:16)

What do you propose causes action?

The illusion of 'action' arises with certain Perspectives. Like the 'action' on the screen of a movie. 'Appearance' is all. Nothing, beyond our concepts/mind actually 'moves', so hence, no 'action'. Moments don't magically morph into other moments. (Ref; electron 'jump' from energy level to energy level)
Yes, I know, this stuff is terribly counter-intuitional, so is the true basic nature of existence.
(But I am enjoying the hell out of the 'movie', I just don't 'believe' that it is any more 'real' than that. A great and magnificent Dream!)
Peace.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Will does not belong in that class.

What 'class'?

The class you refer to belong to the fantasies that are tied to our identification with an "I" or a "me".

I'm not talking about any 'class' of 'will' I speak of 'will'. I never heard of any 'classes'...

Will, on the other hand, need not be tied to freedom or our indentification with ourselves.

It only requires volition,

Can't have it both ways.
Who is displaying this 'volition' if not your 'identification of ego'? From whence comes the 'will'? No 'self' = no (egoic illusions of) 'volition' or 'will'. They are constructs of the human mind and can not be demonstrated to exist otherwhere (as if there is an 'otherwhere).

and while it reworks the idea of will, certainly there needs to be some will or collection of wills to stimulate action.

Okey dokey; 'will' and 'choice' and 'freedom' are certainly as 'real' as 'action/motion'. *__-

Will and perspective are different animals and certainly not mutually exclusive.

I haven't stated anything otherwise. To what are you responding?

In fact, you defeat this position yourself: If you say that you respond from your perspective you imply that one perspective can have the will to respond,

Nope. I appear to do as I appear to do in accord with 'who I am', my 'nature' at any specific moment. No 'will' involved. There is no such implication.

or that there is a will holding entity that can respond.

Again, no such implication is to be logically inferred.

Furthermore, you defeat your own argument as certainly the chain of perception that creates an illusion presupposes a real continuing perceiver and process of perception!

The notion of a 'chain' (of 'events') arises with a particular perspective. (See my other posts here, I offer a bit more explanation.) The 'illusion' IS the appearance of the 'chain'.
I am the Perspective of the moment. Every moment. As are you.
This Perspective (I am not 'arguing'. I have nothing to sell or lose. I offer this as food for thought, as I must. Period. Do with it as you must.) is not a 'process'. A 'process' implies 'motion' which is impossible. I am not a 'continuing' anything as all moments are synchronous. 'Time' is also a derived notion with the illusion of 'linearity' and 'motion'.

[urangutan]

Sorry once again, about my response to this, as I had only read the first page, then discovered there were many more to follow.

The fact is I am just too lazy to read it all and I guess I don't mind if you do not read mine.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by nameless

The illusion of 'action' arises with certain Perspectives. Like the 'action' on the screen of a movie. 'Appearance' is all. Nothing, beyond our concepts/mind actually 'moves', so hence, no 'action'. Moments don't magically morph into other moments. (Ref; electron 'jump' from energy level to energy level)
Yes, I know, this stuff is terribly counter-intuitional, so is the true basic nature of existence.
(But I am enjoying the hell out of the 'movie', I just don't 'believe' that it is any more 'real' than that. A great and magnificent Dream!)
Peace.

The statements are not counter-intuitive, they are self-contradicting.

You speak of the content of mind as if it were real, all the while stating that the perspective required to make such an observation only works in illusion.

What 'class'?

I'm not talking about any 'class' of 'will' I speak of 'will'. I never heard of any 'classes'...

The word you used was "ilk", a synonym of "class":

Is is not a reasonable hypothesis that as 'free-will' and 'choice' are no more than egoic fantasies, that 'will' is of the same 'ilk'?

No 'self' = no (egoic illusions of) 'volition' or 'will'.

Prove it.

Do you disagree that consciousness exists?

Do you disagree that intentional action exists?

Is your perceiver an epiphenomenal ghost in an even more ghostly machine?

Nope. I appear to do as I appear to do in accord with 'who I am', my 'nature' at any specific moment. No 'will' involved. There is no such implication.

So all is appearance but appearance itself, that is real?

The notion of a 'chain' (of 'events') arises with a particular perspective. (See my other posts here, I offer a bit more explanation.) The 'illusion' IS the appearance of the 'chain'.
I am the Perspective of the moment. Every moment. As are you.
This Perspective (I am not 'arguing'. I have nothing to sell or lose. I offer this as food for thought, as I must. Period. Do with it as you must.) is not a 'process'. A 'process' implies 'motion' which is impossible. I am not a 'continuing' anything as all moments are synchronous. 'Time' is also a derived notion with the illusion of 'linearity' and 'motion'.

How does a perspective operate without a process, without material, and not a chain of events. You will have to explain what perspective is to you, as it seems you feel we are free floating non-material entities that invent everything around them, yet can still trust their knowledge of their own nature.

Also, how is motion impossible?