From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 09:13:33 MDT
I feel compelled to jump back in here again, some fifty or more message
exchanges after I withdrew, to try again to express what seems to me is
already obvious to both sides of this debate.
This issue of human behavior and "motivation" involves different sources, or
causes, of the behavior. We have what we consider "concious" chosen
behavior; socially ingrained behavior patterns of which we may be unaware;
physically and chemically induced behavior patterns; genetically influenced
behavior patterns, and we could perhaps go even deeper. I think we would
all agree with this.
The point I tried to make several weeks ago, and felt that Lee privately
recognized it, but chose not acknowledge but instead to focus on the the
meaning and usage of words, is that our behavior, made up of these various
"motivators", is often best understood taken together as a system. Taken
separately, they can be discussed as free will, versus instinct, versus
social coercion, etc.
At the lowest level, altruism doesn't exist, because at this level the
individual doesn't exist.
At the level of meaning that people commonly use to describe interpersonal
relations, yes, altrusim certainly does exist, by definition.
In my opinion, if we could ever get past the quibbling over definitions we
could move on to more interesting and fruitful discussion of the role of
"altruism" now and in the future, examples of altruism in other species, and
non-zero sum interactions in general. Now *that* could be interesting.
- Jef
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Catching up on some old email, now that I have a few minutes...
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
>> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of gts
>> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 9:51 PM
>> To: extropians@extropy.org
>> Subject: RE: Motivation and Motives
>>
>> Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>> "Part of what makes me a person is a deep-seated drive
>>> to avoid the pain should my organs be deprived of oxygen."
>>>
>>> (I had to write that just to focus; on each of three consecutive
>>> prior readings your paragraph, I kept getting opposite answers!)
>>>
>>> I agree with my paraphrase, at least.
>>
>> Well good then. That's progress, almost. (Unfortunately, looking
>> below, I see that it is not much progress after all, as you continue
>> to split hairs in an apparent effort to dispute and deny the
>> obvious).
>
> Please. I am not trying to be obstinate; nor do I feel
> threatened if I get the worst of this argument. (I wish
> that this were true of all arguments.)
>
>>> But it's not *me* when it's unconscious.
>>
>> But it *is* you who breathes unconsciously, Lee.
>
> Yes, I can hardly deny that when I visit the doctor and
> he describes some problem I'm having while asleep, that
> I wouldn't object if he said, "while unconscious, you
> are breathing irregularly". Yet it's also true that
> if his assistent spoke up and said, "he means that
> your body is breathing irregularly", then I would
> admit to that too.
>
>> It is absurd that you should continue to deny that your
>> personality is comprised of these kinds of unconscious
>> motivations and drives in addition to the more
>> familiar conscious motivations and drives.
>
> Yes. I will concede that my personality is made up
> of unconscious motivations and drives in addition to
> the more familiar ones. Surely these unconscious
> nuances would be evident in video tape, and perhaps
> even in email.
>
>>> That's a reflex that I may choose to edit out of
>>> myself when I reach a time of good technology.
>>
>> Yes, and so? You might also edit out your conscious preference for
>> tootie-fruitie flavored ice-cream. Your ability to do so does not
>> mean your preference for that flavor is not part of your present
>> personality.
>
> Yes, but you see, it's all what I *identify* with that
> is decisive when it comes to determining what is *me*.
> I still maintain that *I* don't have a motive to breathe,
> sorry, and that that misuse of language is *doubtless*
> involved in your opinions (that I still disagree with,
> evidently) about *altruism* and *motivation*.
>
>>>> My main thrust in this argument..., is that
>>>> internal behaviors like breathing and the
>>>> beating of the heart are controlled by
>>>> primitive drives or motivations (whichever
>>>> word you prefer), and that these basic drives or
>>>> motivations are part of YOU. They are not of
>>>> some other.
>>>
>>> I say that they are *not* part of me. Now fending off pain
>>> is a part of me, but *not* these "internal behaviors", I claim.
>>
>> Yes, so you claim. But you offer little in the way of
>> argument. If these primitive drives of which I speak
>> are not "of you," then you need to explain "of what"
>> they actually are. Are you saying that your drive to
>> breathe is "of God"? Historically, that is the only
>> competing claim of which I am aware.
>
> No ;-) Evolution built it into me, not God. Since your
> mood seems a touch surly, I had better explain that often
> the "design" seen by worshippers of God really is *design*,
> just that it was committed by nature, or evolution. My
> little smiley means that sometimes some of us Darwinians
> appear to use "Evolution" as a replacement for "God"!
>
>>>> To me the above is an obvious truth of human
>>>> nature. I find myself wondering why it should
>>>> even be a topic of debate.
>>>
>>> I sense some exasperation on your part, which is quite
>>> understandable.
>>
>> I'm glad you understand it. Quite frankly I am beginning
>> to suspect you are merely a master of sophistry.
>
> Oh for Christ's sake, Gordon. Do you honestly believe
> that I'm the only person in the world who *believes*
> what I am saying? You are getting just as short with
> me as Rafal was getting with you, and it appears to me
> that you just both simply underestimate how grossly
> different people's views are, and at what a deep level
> the disagreements lie.
>
> Well what else did you expect from another intelligent
> person? Did you really think that all you had to do
> was be *patient* for a while, and then the other person
> would see the wisdom of your point of view? If it
> *REALLY* was so simple, then people would be agreeing
> on things like this. Instead, people who have devoted
> their *lives* to philosophy, or to the science of
> emotion continue to disagree.
>
>> You have managed for countless messages now to engage
>> me in a dispute that no two intelligent people should
>> ever find themselves, namely that of whether basic
>> human drives such as the drive to breathe are a part
>> of the person who breathes.
>
> Well, you should breathe much easier now. I have
> conceded that in this phrasing I partly agree (e.g.,
> my doctor's example).
>
> If your patience is not at a complete end, then
> perhaps you can use this concession to wrest from
> me an even deeper one. It's not impossible.
>
> Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:18 MST