A friend gave me a book by Mark Twain called What is man? The book basically states two things:

1: Man is a machine that has no original thoughts, we simply take in input, analyze and reformat.

2. Man only does something that benefits him, even if only for a moment.

I've come to the conclusion a long time ago that man is inheritably selfish, and will only do something that makes him happy. But I'm a bit on the edge of the whole machine thing.


Thoughts?

1: Man is a machine that has no original thoughts, we simply take in input, analyze and reformat.

To merely suggest that this is all man amounts to is somewhat problematic. Man's original thought has to come from somewhere which leads to some degree of inherentness. Take music for example. For centuries, we’ve used a standard scale of pitches or notes called the chromatic scale: 12 notes in an octave - then repeat. These 12 notes are the building blocks of all music as it's all constructed from the same stuff, just in different variations. If you do the math, you get 479,001,600 possible combinations that are all different. That's 479,001,600 combinations of orignality!

2. Man only does something that benefits him, even if only for a moment.

I've said this for years. Think of a single, intentional act that isn't self-serving in some way. I certainly can't.

I've come to the conclusion a long time ago that man is inheritably selfish, and will only do something that makes him happy.

I think there's a little more to it than just a desire to make one's self happy. Most acts are done simply out of the interest of self preservation which generally tends to be middle ground -- not a pursuit of happiness, yet self-serving none the less.

But I'm a bit on the edge of the whole machine thing.


What constitutes a machine?

By machine they mean a non creative re-organizer of information.

As far as music, we didn't create the notes, we heard them in nature (outside input) and went from there. Even math isn't created, if you have 2 apples and take one away there's always 1. Thats been discovered, not created.

By machine they mean a non creative re-organizer of information.

So, in that sense, music is merely the reorganization of data. Interesting.

As far as music, we didn't create the notes, we heard them in nature (outside input) and went from there. Even math isn't created, if you have 2 apples and take one away there's always 1. Thats been discovered, not created.

What about things that are conceptually human? Say, like the theory of universal human rights. A set of entitlements that human beings are given simply because they were born. Can that be classified as a reorganization of information?

Human rights:

There are things bad for my self preservation

That thing is bad for my self preservation

I dont want that to happen to me

Things against the law are less likley to happen

I'll make that thing thats bad for me against the law

tada, human rights.

Human rights:

There are things bad for my self preservation

That thing is bad for my self preservation

I dont want that to happen to me

Things against the law are less likley to happen

I'll make that thing thats bad for me against the law

tada, human rights.

Couple of things:

First, human rights aim to extend beyond self preservation. The enjoyment of economic, social and political rights are held in consideration of one's pursuit of happiness.

Second, my raising the issue of human rights was not in opposition to human's being selfish, but rather against man's lack of originality. Where did this concept come from if it's not an original human construct?

It most likley started off by someone being lucky enough to not have anything infringe apon him. Someone esle saw that, which is where the idea started and ran with it using the privious logic

Actually, historically, it began with a bunch of French guys sitting around in salons talking about the rights of the citizen. This spawned the enlightenment. Looking further back in time, it probably began with the dissatisfaction of one's status quo. It wasn't simply about someone looking at what someone else had and wanting it as well. It was about viewing the level of discrepancy within the spectrum of humanity and concluding that all people are entitled to a certain level somewhere within the middle. Is this an instance of the re-organization of data? What about socialism? Capitalism? Through word play I suppose one could make a convincing argument for either side.

Consider this: My thoughts are just the organization of words. Words are used to associate recognition through aspects of nature. As such, I see a tree and I call it a "tree" so I conceive nothing original in doing so. Is this then to suggest that every word is given to us by nature? Where did the concept of time come from? What of good and evil? Are these concepts present in nature?

I'm no expert in the matter, and dont have all the facts. But your wording sides with the book

It wasn't simply about someone looking at what someone else had and wanting it as well. It was about viewing the level of discrepancy within the spectrum of humanity and concluding that all people are entitled to a certain level somewhere within the middle. Is this an instance of the re-organization of data? What about socialism? Capitalism? Through word play I suppose one could make a convincing argument for either side.

Your right though, with the propper wording any argument can be turned in either direction

Consider this: My thoughts are just the organization of words. Words are used to associate recognition through aspects of nature. As such, I see a tree and I call it a "tree" so I conceive nothing original in doing so. Is this then to suggest that every word is given to us by nature? Where did the concept of time come from? What of good and evil? Are these concepts present in nature?

Time can be seen this way. A bike goes down a road, a car comes along and goes down the same road twice as fast. If it took the bike X to go down the street and Y for the car then that can be seen as a crude time scale.

As far as good and evil goes that depends on the viewpoint of the person. I've been exposed to the thought that there is no good and evil, simply actions. "good" and "bad" are words givin to things and based on what the individual deems right and wrong. It might be a good thing to kill an attacker in your veiwpoint, but from the side of the attackers family you were in the wrong. But thats a whole other topic :bigthumb:

As far as good and evil goes that depends on the viewpoint of the person. I've been exposed to the thought that there is no good and evil, simply actions. "good" and "bad" are words givin to things and based on what the individual deems right and wrong. It might be a good thing to kill an attacker in your veiwpoint, but from the side of the attackers family you were in the wrong. But thats a whole other topic :bigthumb:

Whether good or evil truly exist or not is irrelevant. What is relevant though is that, real or not, the concepts exist within someone's mind. If nature didn't put them there, then what did? Same goes with the concepts of right and wrong as they can be interchangeable with good and evil.

Ah, you have a point there. If the concept of good and evil is unique to each individual then no single factor could be responsible. Although I'm sure someone could argue that a lifetime of events would accumulate to give someone an idea of right and wrong.

That guy would suffer more watching his friend die in battle then he would taking that bullet. It gives him pleasure to help out his friend, if only for that split second.

And that would make someone happy, to die for someone they love.

making yourself happy IS self-serving

surely you've witnessed altruistic, potentially self-sacrificing acts in circumstances where there wasn't enough time for any real thought to go into it.. only time to react

While I haven't I know what your talking about.

Another good point against the machine

I've said this for years. Think of a single, intentional act that isn't self-serving in some way. I certainly can't.


You can't win this one. No matter how hard you think about it there is always a selfish counter. I have a couple books on this.

You can't win this one. No matter how hard you think about it there is always a selfish counter. I have a couple books on this.

I can think of several, and its pretty easy. It would be something that you would never gain from, and the only way to do that is an act after you are dead. In that sense, you are committing an act where you cannot gain.

Organ donation is one.

I can think of several, and its pretty easy. It would be something that you would never gain from, and the only way to do that is an act after you are dead. In that sense, you are committing an act where you cannot gain.

Organ donation is one.

Are you an organ donor? If so, do you feel good about it? If other people finds out you are an organ donor, would they think less or more about you?

I can think of several, and its pretty easy. It would be something that you would never gain from, and the only way to do that is an act after you are dead. In that sense, you are committing an act where you cannot gain.

Organ donation is one.

Cant you gain a 'feel' good feeling?

I can think of several, and its pretty easy. It would be something that you would never gain from, and the only way to do that is an act after you are dead. In that sense, you are committing an act where you cannot gain.

Organ donation is one.

Not true, you get satisfaction from the idea that you are helping someone in someway while you are alive before you actually donate anything. Same thing with sacrificing your life to save another, many people, while alive (obviously) like the notion of being remembered as a hero and thus are resolved to act couragously when the opportunity presents itself.

surely you've witnessed altruistic, potentially self-sacrificing acts in circumstances where there wasn't enough time for any real thought to go into it.. only time to react

Would that count as a selfless act though, or just more of a reflex?

I think it counts as altruism, since altruism is simply doing good for others without regard for reward.. and in a situation like that, there isn't time to regard it

I've said this for years. Think of a single, intentional act that isn't self-serving in some way. I certainly can't.



How about when I hopped in my car, went down to NYC on 9/11, did SAR for 28 hours, then drove home? What was self-serving about that?

How about when I hopped in my car, went down to NYC on 9/11, did SAR for 28 hours, then drove home? What was self-serving about that?

ehhh, I'm not about to start telling you that your actions were selfish, I'm just not convinced that there are any actions that aren't at the very least, mutually benefical.

I think it counts as altruism, since altruism is simply doing good for others without regard for reward.. and in a situation like that, there isn't time to regard it

I think then that the issue of intent becomes relevant. If there wasn't time to consider the reward, then it's plausible that there wasn't time to consider the benefit for the other person. Kind of like seeing that someone is about to get hit by a train and in that split second before impact, you manage to push them out of the way. Naturally, it's common sense that you did a good deed but if you didn't have time to think about this, I'm not sure that it would count as selfless. Conversely, if you did have time to consider the benefit to the individual about to be run over, I think the connection between doing good for someone else and the satisfaction that one recieves from doing this good deed would be instantaneous.

Granted, the above is not a great agrument, but it's the best I can think of right now.

This makes me sick

How about when I hopped in my car, went down to NYC on 9/11, did SAR for 28 hours, then drove home? What was self-serving about that?

Oh my, I don't think Ayn Rand would agree with that!

I suppose it could be argued (I am not going to argue any of this) that you did that to:

A) To make yourself look good (either to yourself or others)

2) You felt a 'moral responsibility' (Due to your religion (so you can look good to your deity), or nationality (why haven't you done more in other countries where people need it so much more?) or even to 'make up for past wrongs.')

Q) It was programmed by evolution, for the good of your race! (Yes, I know most evolutionists wont argue this)

♂) Allah had mercy on those he hates, and sent you as his angel.

╥) The pope, using his mind control powers granted by that massive hat, impregnated your neurons with alien DNA, and it had some odd side effects.

╥) The pope, using his mind control powers granted by that massive hat, impregnated your neurons with alien DNA, and it had some odd side effects.

Best argument to date :bigthumb:

Objectivism ftw
Oh my, I don't think Ayn Rand would agree with that!

I suppose it could be argued (I am not going to argue any of this) that you did that to:

A) To make yourself look good (either to yourself or others)

2) You felt a 'moral responsibility' (Due to your religion (so you can look good to your deity), or nationality (why haven't you done more in other countries where people need it so much more?) or even to 'make up for past wrongs.')

Q) It was programmed by evolution, for the good of your race! (Yes, I know most evolutionists wont argue this)

♂) Allah had mercy on those he hates, and sent you as his angel.

╥) The pope, using his mind control powers granted by that massive hat, impregnated your neurons with alien DNA, and it had some odd side effects.

Not true, you get satisfaction from the idea that you are helping someone in someway while you are alive before you actually donate anything. Same thing with sacrificing your life to save another, many people, while alive (obviously) like the notion of being remembered as a hero and thus are resolved to act couragously when the opportunity presents itself.

Not if your dead....you will never know. Sure its going to feel great when you check the little box to say you could potentially give organs. But its not a definite possibility. You could get killed by poison or mangled beyond donation. But you don't know your own cause of death sometimes, and if you could donate. So its an after the fact situation. I know its splitting hairs but, once you're dead you cant gain that happiness from it.

The good deed isn't done while you are dead and your organs are being donated to some needy person. The good deed is being done while you are alive, when you check that little box. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself for contributing to something that could potentially help another person. Maybe it allows you to feel superior towards those who aren't organ donors. Are you trying to say that when you check off that box, that you feel absolutely nothing? Odds are you tell yourself, "hey, it doesn't hurt me any and it'll probably help someone who needs it, so why not." That is your reason for doing so, which is hardly selfless (though a good deed none the less).

Objectivism ftw

You're only saying that to make yourself look good. ;)